Rate Adjustments for Indian Irrigation Projects, 19950-19955 [E7-7558]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
19950
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 76 / Friday, April 20, 2007 / Notices
Total Estimated Burden Hours:
67,550.
Status: Revision of a currently
approved collection.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as
amended.
Dated: April 16, 2007.
Lillian L. Deitzer,
Departmental Paperwork Reduction Act
Officer, Office of the Chief Information
Officer.
[FR Doc. E7–7480 Filed 4–20–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR–5125–N–16]
Federal Property Suitable as Facilities
To Assist the Homeless
Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Community Planning and
Development, HUD.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Notice.
This Notice identifies
unutilized, underutilized, excess, and
surplus Federal property reviewed by
HUD for suitability for possible use to
assist the homeless.
SUMMARY:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
April 20, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing
and Urban Development, Room 7262,
451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20410; telephone (202) 708–1234;
TTY number for the hearing- and
speech-impaired (202) 708–2565, (these
telephone numbers are not toll-free), or
call the toll-free Title V information line
at 1–800–927–7588.
In
accordance with the December 12, 1988
court order in National Coalition for the
Homeless v. Veterans Administration,
No. 88–2503–OG (D.D.C.), HUD
publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis,
identifying unutilized, underutilized,
excess and surplus Federal buildings
and real property that HUD has
reviewed for suitability for use to assist
the homeless. Today’s Notice is for the
purpose of announcing that no
additional properties have been
determined suitable or unsuitable this
week.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: April 12, 2007.
Mark R. Johnston,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs.
[FR Doc. E7–7284 Filed 4–19–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:52 Apr 19, 2007
Jkt 211001
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
United States. We are authorized 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.
DATES: Effective Date: The irrigation
assessment rates shown in the tables are
effective on January 1, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
details about a particular BIA irrigation
project, please use the tables in
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
November 24, 2006 (71 FR 67897), 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 January 23, 2007.
Did the BIA defer any proposed rate
increases?
For the Uintah Indian Irrigation
Project, the BIA, in consultation with
the tribes and Irrigation Project water
users, has deferred the rate increase for
2007.
For the Flathead Indian Irrigation
Project, the BIA, in consultation with
the tribes and Irrigation Project water
users, has deferred the rate increase for
2008.
Did the BIA receive any comments on
the proposed irrigation assessment rate
adjustments?
Written comments were received for
the proposed rate adjustments for the
Blackfeet Irrigation Project, Montana,
Fort Peck Irrigation Project, Montana,
Fort Belknap Irrigation Project,
Montana, the Flathead Irrigation Project,
Montana, the San Carlos Irrigation
Project—Joint Works (SCIP–JW),
Arizona, Walker River Irrigation Project,
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Nevada, and the Wind River Irrigation
Project, Wyoming.
What issues were of concern by the
commenters?
The commenters were concerned with
one or more of the following issues: (1)
How funds collected from stakeholders
are expended on operation and
maintenance (O&M); (2) the impact of
an assessment rate increase on the local
agricultural economy and on individual
land owners and irrigators; (3) BIA O&M
subsidies for trust land; (4) drainage of
water from farm lands and on farm
improvements; (5) non-delivery of water
to water users with outstanding O&M
charges. The following comments are
specific to the Walker River Irrigation
Project, Nevada: (1) Safety of dams
project which will shorten water
delivery time; (2) breach of trust issues;
and (3) whether the rate increase
violates federal law. The following
comments are specific to the San Carlos
Irrigation Project—Joint Works: (1) The
amount of project reserve funds,
income, and expenditures; and (2) the
timeliness of the rate adjustment notice.
How does BIA respond to the concern
of how funds are expended for O&M?
BIA includes the following expenses
in irrigation project budgets: Project
personnel costs; materials and supplies;
vehicle and equipment repairs;
equipment; capitalization expenses;
acquisition expenses; rehabilitation
costs; maintenance of a reserve fund for
contingencies or emergencies; and other
expenses we determine necessary to
properly operate and maintain the
irrigation projects.
One common misconception water
users have is that all salary costs are
administrative. Only a portion of each
project budget is for administrative
costs. The administrative costs include
the office costs, office staff (accounting
and clerical), and a portion of the
project manager’s salary. The O&M
workers are considered O&M costs for
operating and maintaining the project.
The Government Accountability
Office (GAO) completed an audit report
(GAO–06–314) in February 2006. In that
report, the GAO recommended that the
BIA require project managers to meet at
least twice annually with water users.
On July 21, 2006, the Director, BIA,
directed each BIA revenue-generating
irrigation project to meet, at a minimum,
twice annually with its water users—
once at the end of the irrigation season
and once before the next season. For
projects that operate year round, those
projects will determine their best
schedule for holding these meetings. At
these meetings, the irrigation staff will
E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM
20APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 76 / Friday, April 20, 2007 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
provide to the waters users information
on project operations, including budget
plans and actual annual expenditures,
and will obtain feedback and input from
the water users.
The BIA’s budget estimates and
records of expenditures for 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 O&M assessment rate
increase and related impact on the
local agricultural economy and on
individual land owners and irrigators?
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 based in part on
the economic impact on water users.
This tempering of rate increases 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) and GAO audits. In the most
recent OIG 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.’’ A previous OIG audit, No.
88–42, February 1988, reached the same
conclusion. A separate audit, No. 95–I–
1402, September 1995, performed on
one of BIA’s largest irrigation projects,
Wapato Indian Irrigation Project,
reinforced the general findings of the
OIG on the BIA’s irrigation program.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:52 Apr 19, 2007
Jkt 211001
This audit 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
are 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 the BIA respond to removing
O&M subsidies for trust land?
In the past, BIA has provided limited
appropriated funds to irrigation projects
to assist the projects in their operations
and maintenance and, at a few projects,
subsidized the O&M costs for trust
lands. Unfortunately, the BIA does not
have sufficient discretionary funding to
continue this practice in the future.
Without the necessary rate increases,
the impact to projects as a result of the
lack of adequate O&M funds could
result in the inability to deliver water
and maintain irrigation system
components adequately.
How does BIA respond to concerns
about drainage of water off farm lands
and on-farm improvements?
The BIA is responsible for the O&M
of the irrigation delivery system and is
not responsible for on-farm activities. In
25 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
Section 171.8, Surface Drainage, it states
that the water users are responsible for
surface drainage resulting from their
irrigation practices.
How does BIA respond to concerns
about non-delivery of water to water
users with outstanding O&M charges?
The BIA’s irrigation O&M regulations,
25 CFR 171.17, require payment of
annual O&M assessments before
irrigation water may be delivered. This
requirement includes delinquent
payments and balances that have been
referred to the Department of the
Treasury pursuant to the Debt
Collection Improvement Act of 1996
and Federal debt collection standards at
31 CFR Part 901.
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19951
The Following comments Are Specific
to Walker River Irrigation Project,
Nevada
The Walker River Paiute Tribe (Tribe)
objects to the proposed O&M rate
increase from $7.32 to $10.00 per acre
because: (1) Weber Dam and Reservoir
are subject to interim operating criteria
for safety of dams reasons, which
require the operation of the Reservoir at
lower elevations than are normal, and
the water users thereby receive a
reduced amount of stored water; (2) BIA
failed to justify the increased O&M rate;
(3) it is a breach of trust duty for the BIA
to increase the O&M rate; and (4) the
rate increase violates Federal law.
How does the BIA respond to objections
that raising the O&M rates when the
safety of dams project may shorten
water delivery time and that the BIA
failed to justify the rate increase?
Weber Dam Operations—In CY 2007,
water supply shortages are more likely
to be caused by the below average
snowfall and precipitation in the basin
(less than 40 percent of normal this year
according to the National Resources
Conservation Service) than by the
interim operating criteria at Weber Dam.
The Tribe and the BIA have worked
closely in CY 2007 to manage the safety
of dams repair activities in a way to
minimize inconvenience to the water
users in the Project. The BIA’s O&M
costs to operate the Project in 2007
remain the same regardless of the
available water supply in the system.
BIA’s O&M Budget Justification—BIA
provided a detailed O&M budget
justification to the Project water users
on May 23, 2006, and the O&M budget
justification was discussed with the
Project water users again on September
28, 2006. The budget justification shows
that the increased O&M rate proposed
for 2007 still does not cover all of BIA’s
costs for O&M of the Project and does
not include funds to maintain a reserve
fund or to pay for deferred maintenance
costs.
How does the BIA respond to comments
regarding breaching its trust duty?
The BIA disagrees that increasing
O&M rates for Indian irrigation projects
violates any trust duty to Indian tribes.
The BIA, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 381 et
seq. and 25 CFR part 171, has
responsibilities to administer
constructed Indian irrigation projects,
set rates, collect assessments, and make
decisions regarding water delivery on
BIA irrigation projects. The BIA must
collect O&M assessments in order to
operate and maintain the irrigation
infrastructure. Over time, costs of
E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM
20APN1
19952
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 76 / Friday, April 20, 2007 / Notices
operating and maintaining the projects
increase, and rates must be adjusted
accordingly to enable the BIA to
continue to provide irrigation services.
This is particularly true because O&M
rates are the only regular source of
funding for the BIA’s irrigation projects.
Contrary to the assertion of the
commenter, there is no fiduciary
obligation for the Department’s O&M of
irrigation projects. See, e.g., Grey v.
United States, 21 Cl. Ct. 285 (1990),
aff’d, 935 F.2d 281 (Fed. Cir. 1991), cert.
denied, 502 U.S. 1057 (1992).
How does the BIA respond to the rate
increase that violates federal law?
The Tribe stated that ‘‘* * * 25
U.S.C. Section 385 states that costs
incurred by the BIA may be reimbursed
by farmers only if the farmers have
adequate funds to repay the
Government.’’ This statement
misconstrues 25 U.S.C. 385. The
Secretary’s authorization to set O&M
charges is not subject to a determination
of an individual’s ability to pay. The
provision quoted from 25 U.S.C. 385
refers only to repayment of construction
costs. 25 U.S.C. 385 codifies several
separate provisions taken from the Act
of August 14, 1914, Pub. L. 63–160, 38
Stat. 582, 583. In addition to authorizing
the Secretary to set and assess O&M
rates on irrigation projects, the 1914 Act
also appropriated a lump sum of money
to use for construction of irrigation
projects. The second provision of 25
U.S.C. 385, regarding reimbursement of
construction costs where Indians have
the ability to pay, only applies to the
construction money appropriated in the
1914 Act and does not relate to the
Secretary’s O&M rate-setting authority.
The following comment is specific to
San Carlos Irrigation Project—Joint
Works (SCIP–JW).
How does BIA respond to concerns
regarding how funds collected from
stakeholders are expended on O&M; the
amount of project reserve funds,
income and expenditures; and the
timeliness of the rate adjustment
notice?
By letter dated January 22, 2007, an
Attorney for the San Carlos Irrigation
and Drainage District (District)
submitted comments on the proposed
2008 budget and O&M rate for the San
Carlos Irrigation Project (Project). On
August 8, 2006, the District filed a
Complaint in the United States Court of
Federal Claims (Case No. 06–576C). The
Complaint raises most of the same
factual and legal issues the District
raised in its comments about the
Project’s proposed O&M rate and budget
for 2008. Because Federal court
litigation is pending concerning most of
the issues raised in the District’s
comments on the proposed 2008 O&M
rate and budget, specific responses to
these issues will not be discussed here.
As noted in the District’s comments,
on or before December 31, 2007, the
Project and the District will learn
whether the provisions of the Arizona
Water Settlement Act (Settlement Act)
are deemed effective, which will then
trigger the timelines for establishment of
the Joint Works Board under the
Settlement Act. This process will
require the Project and the affected
water users to clarify and evaluate
future O&M rates, activities and costs,
Project name
and responsibilities as required by the
Settlement Act and implementing
agreements.
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 if 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 BIA 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, P.O. Box 40, Pablo, MT 59855–
0040, Telephone: (406) 675–2700.
Eric J. LaPointe, Superintendent, Alan Oliver, Supervisory General Engineer, Fort Hall Agency, P.O. Box
220, Fort Hall, ID 83203–0220, Telephone: (208) 238–2301.
Pierce Harrison, Project Administrator, Wapato Irrigation Project, P.O. Box 220, Wapato, WA 98951–0220,
Telephone: (509) 877–3155.
Rocky Mountain Region Contacts
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Ed Parisian, Acting 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 ....................
Fort Belknap Irrigation Project ........
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:52 Apr 19, 2007
Stephen Pollock, Superintendent, Ted Hall, Irrigation Project Manager, Box 880, Browning, MT 59417,
Telephones: (406) 338–7544, Superintendent, (406) 338–7519, Irrigation Project Manager.
Ed Lone Fight, Superintendent, Karl Helvik, Irrigation Project Manager, P.O. Box 69, Crow Agency, MT
59022, Telephones: (406) 638–2672, Superintendent, (406) 638–2863, Irrigation Project Manager.
Judy Gray, Superintendent, Ralph Leo, Irrigation Project Manager, R.R.1, Box 980, Harlem, MT 59526,
Telephones: (406) 353–2901, Superintendent, (406) 353–2905, Irrigation Project Manager.
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM
20APN1
19953
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 76 / Friday, April 20, 2007 / Notices
Project name
Project/agency contacts
Fort Peck Irrigation Project .............
Vacant, Superintendent, P.O. Box 637, Poplar, MT 59255, Vacant, Irrigation Manager 602 6th Avenue
North, Wolf Point, MT 59201, Telephones: (406) 768–5312, Superintendent, (406) 653–1752, Irrigation
Manager.
George Gover, Superintendent, Ray Nation, Acting Irrigation Project Manager, P.O. Box 158, Fort
Washakie, WY 82514, Telephones: (307) 332–7810, Superintendent, (307) 332–2596, Irrigation Project
Manager.
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 ............
Ross P. Denny, Superintendent, John Formea, Irrigation Engineer, P.O. Box 315, Ignacio, CO, 81137–
0315, Telephones: (970) 563–4511, Superintendent, (970) 563–1017, Irrigation Engineer.
Western Region Contacts
Alan Anspach Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Western Regional Office, Two Arizona Center 400 N. 5th Street, 12th floor, Phoenix,
Arizona 85004, Telephone: (602) 379–6600
Colorado River Irrigation Project ....
Duck Valley Irrigation Project .........
Fort Yuma Irrigation Project ............
San Carlos Irrigation Project Joint
Works.
San Carlos Irrigation Project Indian
Works.
Uintah Irrigation Project ..................
Walker River Irrigation Project ........
Perry Baker, Superintendent, Ted Henry, Irrigation Project Manager, R.R. 1 Box 9–C, Parker, AZ 85344,
Telephone: (928) 669–7111.
Robert Hunter, Acting Superintendent, 1555 Shoshone Circle, Elko, NV 89801, Telephone: (775) 738–
0569.
Sam Rideshorse, Superintendent P.O. Box 11000, Yuma, AZ 85366, Telephone: (520) 782–1202.
Carl Christensen, Supervisory General Engineer, P.O. Box 250, 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, P.O. Box 130, Fort Duchesne, UT 84026, Telephone: (435) 722–4341.
Robert Hunter, Superintendent, 311 E. Washington Street, Carson City, NV 89701, Telephone: (775) 887–
3500.
What irrigation assessments or charges
are proposed for adjustment by this
notice?
The rate table below contains the
2007 final rates for all of our irrigation
projects where we recover our costs for
operation and maintenance. The table
also contains the proposed and final
rates for the 2008 season and
subsequent years where applicable. An
asterisk immediately following the
name of the project notes the irrigation
projects where rates are have been
adjusted.
NORTHWEST REGION RATE TABLE
Final 2006
rate
Project name
Rate category
Flathead Irrigation Project ...............................
Basic Per acre—A ..........................................
Basic Per acre—B ..........................................
Minimum Charge per tract ..............................
Basic Per acre ................................................
Minimum Chare per tract ................................
Basic Per acre ................................................
Minimum Charge per tract ..............................
Basic Per acre ................................................
Pressure Per acre ..........................................
Minimum Charge per tract ..............................
Billing Charge Per Tract .................................
Farm unit/land tracts up to one acre (minimum charge).
Farm unit/land tracts up to one acre—per
acre.
Billing Charge Per Tract .................................
Farm unit/land tracts up to one acre (minimum charge).
Farm unit/land tracts up to one 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.
Fort Hall Irrigation Project* ..............................
Fort Hall Irrigation Project—Minor Units* ........
Fort Hall Irrigation Project—Michaud* ............
Wapato Irrigation Project—Toppenish/Simcoe
Units*.
Wapato Irrigation Project—Ahtanum Units* ....
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Wapato Irrigation Project—Satus Unit* ...........
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:52 Apr 19, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Final 2007
rate
$21.45
10.75
65.00
24.00
25.00
15.00
25.00
34.00
48.50
25.00
5.00
13.50
$23.45
10.75
65.00
27.00
25.00
17.00
25.00
35.75
50.00
25.00
5.00
14.00
13.50
14.00
5.00
13.50
5.00
14.00
13.50
5.00
53.00
14.00
5.00
55.00
53.00
55.00
58.00
60.00
E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM
20APN1
Final 2008 rate
$23.45.
10.75.
65.00.
To be determined.
19954
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 76 / Friday, April 20, 2007 / Notices
NORTHWEST REGION RATE TABLE—Continued
Project name
Final 2006
rate
Rate category
‘‘B’’ farm unit/land tracts over one acre—per
acre.
Water Rental Agreement Lands—per acre ....
Final 2007
rate
63.00
65.00
64.50
Final 2008 rate
67.00
ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION RATE TABLE
Final 2006
rate
Final 2007
rate
Project name
Rate category
Blackfeet Irrigation Project* ............................
Crow Irrigation Project—Willow * Creek O&M
(includes Agency, Lodge Grass #1, Lodge
Grass #2, Reno, Upper Little Horn, and
Forty Mile Units).
Crow Irrigation * Project—All Others (includes
Bighorn, Soap Creek, and Pryor Units).
Crow Irrigation Two Leggins Drainage District
Fort Belknap * Irrigation Project ......................
Basic-per acre ................................................
Basic-per acre ................................................
13.00
17.30
15.50
19.30
Basic-per acre ................................................
17.00
19.00
Basic-per acre ................................................
Trust Land per acre ........................................
non-Trust Land per acre .................................
Basic-per acre ................................................
Basic-per acre ................................................
Basic-per acre ................................................
2.00
8.50
17.00
17.50
14.00
17.00
2.00
13.88
18.50
20.00
15.00
17.00
Fort Peck Irrigation Project* ............................
Wind River Irrigation Project* ..........................
Wind River Irrigation Project—LeClair District
Final 2008 rate
To be determined.
20.00.
20.00.
To be determined.
SOUTHWEST REGION RATE TABLE
Final 2006
rate
Project name
Rate category
Pine River Irrigation Project* ............................................
Minimum Charge per tract ...............................................
Basic-per acre ..................................................................
Final 2007
rate
$50.00
13.00
$50.00
150.00
WESTERN REGION RATE TABLE
Final 2006
rate
Final 2007
rate
Project name
Rate category
Colorado River Irrigation Project .....
Basic per acre up to 5.75 acre-feet
Excess Water per acre-foot over
5.75 acre-feet.
Basic-per acre .................................
Basic-per acre up to 5.0 acre-feet ..
Excess Water per acre-foot over
5.0 acre-feet.
Basic-per acre .................................
$47.00
17.00
$47.00
17.00
5.30
65.00
10.50
30.00
Basic-per acre .................................
77.00
Basic-per acre .................................
Minimum Bill ....................................
Indian per acre ................................
Non-Indian per acre ........................
12.00
12.00
7.32
15.29
Proposed 2009
rate
5.30
72.00
10.50
30.00
Proposed 2008
rate
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* .......
To be determined
To be determined.
77.00
$21.00 Final 2008
Rate.
To be determined
$21.00. Final
2009 Rate.
To be determined.
12.00
25.00
10.00
16.00
13.00 ...................
16.00 ...................
$16.00.
$16.00.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
* Notes irrigation projects where rates are have been adjusted.
Note #1—The O&M rate for the Fort Yuma Irrigation Project has two components. The first component is the O&M rate established by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the owner and operator of the Project. The BOR rate for 2007 has been established at $65 which is an increase
from the $62 rate in 2006. The second component is for the O&M rate established by BIA to cover administrative costs, including billing and collections for the Project. Through this notice, the BIA is establishing a $7/acre O&M rate for its component of the rate. The BIA rate assessment
would cover approximately 50 percent of the accounting technician and 40 percent of the Natural Resource Officer at the BIA Fort Yuma Agency.
Note #2—The 2008 and 2009 irrigation rates are final through this notice. The 2007 rate was established by final notice published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on April 5, 2006 (Vol. 71, No. 65, page 17131).
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:42 Apr 19, 2007
Jkt 211001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
these entities on issues of water
delivery, water availability, and costs of
administration, operation, maintenance,
E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM
20APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 76 / Friday, April 20, 2007 / Notices
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
increase 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)
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 August 31, 2009.
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: April 12, 2007.
Carl J. Artman,
Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. E7–7558 Filed 4–19–07; 8:45 am]
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.
BILLING CODE 4310–W7–P
Regulatory Flexibility Act
[NV–040–06–5101–ER–F344; (N–78091)]
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.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federalism (Executive Order 13132)
The Department has determined that
these rate adjustments do not have
significant Federalism effects because
they pertain to Federal-tribal relations
and will not interfere with the roles,
rights, and responsibilities of States.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:52 Apr 19, 2007
Jkt 211001
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
Notice of Availability of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) for a Proposed Coal-Fired
Electric Power Generating Plant in
Eastern White Pine County and Notice
of Public Meetings; Nevada
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of Availability.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(C)
of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) of 1969, a DEIS has been
prepared by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), Ely Field Office for
the White Pine Energy Station (WPES)
and is now available for comment. This
document evaluates the environmental
effects from constructing a coal-fired
electric power generating plant (up to
1,600-megawatts) and associated
features on public lands in White Pine
County, Nevada.
DATES: The DEIS is now available for
comment. Copies of the DEIS will be
mailed to individuals, agencies, or
companies who previously requested
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19955
copies. Mailed comments on the DEIS
must be postmarked by June 19, 2007.
Written comments on the document
should be addressed to Jack Tribble,
Acting Assistant Field Manager, Bureau
of Land Management, Ely Field Office,
HC 33 Box 33500, Ely, NV 89301–9408.
Oral and/or written comments may also
be presented at two public meetings.
There will one public meeting in Ely
and one public meeting in Reno. The
date, time, and location will be made
available at least 15 days before each
meeting.
Public reading copies of the
DEIS will be available for reading at
public libraries listed below:
—University of Nevada-Reno, Getchell
Library, Government Publication
Dept., Reno, NV 89507.
—Washoe County Library, 301 South
Center Street, Reno, NV 89501.
—White Pine County Library, 950
Campton Street, Ely, NV 89301.
A limited number of copies of the
document will be available at the
following BLM offices:
—Bureau of Land Management, Elko
Field Office, 3900 Idaho Street, Elko,
NV 89801.
—Bureau of Land Management, Carson
City Field Office, 5665 Morgan Mill
Road, Carson City, NV 89701.
—Bureau of Land Management, Ely
Field Office, 702 North Industrial
Way, Ely, NV 89301–9408.
—Nevada State Office, 1340 Financial
Boulevard, Reno, NV 89502–7147.
—Washington Office of Public Affairs,
18th and C Street, NW., Washington,
DC 20240.
Individual respondents may request
confidentiality. If you wish to withhold
your name and/or street address from
public review or from disclosure under
the Freedom of Information Act, you
must state this prominently at the
beginning of your written comments.
Such requests will be honored to the
extent allowed by law. All submissions
from organizations, businesses, and
from individuals identifying themselves
as representatives or officials of
organizations or businesses will be
available for public inspection in their
entirety.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Doris Metcalf at the above address, or
phone: 775–289–1852.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The DEIS
addresses alternatives to resolve the
following major issues: Ground water,
air quality, visual resources, biological
resources, and socioeconomic effects.
The Proposed Action includes the
following actions: Northern coal-fired
power plant site right-of-way (ROW),
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM
20APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 76 (Friday, April 20, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19950-19955]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7558]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 authorized 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.
DATES: Effective Date: The irrigation assessment rates shown in the
tables are effective on January 1, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For details about a particular BIA
irrigation project, please use the tables in 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 November 24, 2006 (71 FR 67897),
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 January 23,
2007.
Did the BIA defer any proposed rate increases?
For the Uintah Indian Irrigation Project, the BIA, in consultation
with the tribes and Irrigation Project water users, has deferred the
rate increase for 2007.
For the Flathead Indian Irrigation Project, the BIA, in
consultation with the tribes and Irrigation Project water users, has
deferred the rate increase for 2008.
Did the BIA receive any comments on the proposed irrigation assessment
rate adjustments?
Written comments were received for the proposed rate adjustments
for the Blackfeet Irrigation Project, Montana, Fort Peck Irrigation
Project, Montana, Fort Belknap Irrigation Project, Montana, the
Flathead Irrigation Project, Montana, the San Carlos Irrigation
Project--Joint Works (SCIP-JW), Arizona, Walker River Irrigation
Project, Nevada, and the Wind River Irrigation Project, Wyoming.
What issues were of concern by the commenters?
The commenters were concerned with one or more of the following
issues: (1) How funds collected from stakeholders are expended on
operation and maintenance (O&M); (2) the impact of an assessment rate
increase on the local agricultural economy and on individual land
owners and irrigators; (3) BIA O&M subsidies for trust land; (4)
drainage of water from farm lands and on farm improvements; (5) non-
delivery of water to water users with outstanding O&M charges. The
following comments are specific to the Walker River Irrigation Project,
Nevada: (1) Safety of dams project which will shorten water delivery
time; (2) breach of trust issues; and (3) whether the rate increase
violates federal law. The following comments are specific to the San
Carlos Irrigation Project--Joint Works: (1) The amount of project
reserve funds, income, and expenditures; and (2) the timeliness of the
rate adjustment notice.
How does BIA respond to the concern of how funds are expended for O&M?
BIA includes the following expenses in irrigation project budgets:
Project personnel costs; materials and supplies; vehicle and equipment
repairs; equipment; capitalization expenses; acquisition expenses;
rehabilitation costs; maintenance of a reserve fund for contingencies
or emergencies; and other expenses we determine necessary to properly
operate and maintain the irrigation projects.
One common misconception water users have is that all salary costs
are administrative. Only a portion of each project budget is for
administrative costs. The administrative costs include the office
costs, office staff (accounting and clerical), and a portion of the
project manager's salary. The O&M workers are considered O&M costs for
operating and maintaining the project.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) completed an audit
report (GAO-06-314) in February 2006. In that report, the GAO
recommended that the BIA require project managers to meet at least
twice annually with water users. On July 21, 2006, the Director, BIA,
directed each BIA revenue-generating irrigation project to meet, at a
minimum, twice annually with its water users--once at the end of the
irrigation season and once before the next season. For projects that
operate year round, those projects will determine their best schedule
for holding these meetings. At these meetings, the irrigation staff
will
[[Page 19951]]
provide to the waters users information on project operations,
including budget plans and actual annual expenditures, and will obtain
feedback and input from the water users.
The BIA's budget estimates and records of expenditures for 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 O&M assessment rate
increase and related impact on the local agricultural economy and on
individual land owners and irrigators?
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 based in part on the economic impact on water users. This
tempering of rate increases 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) and GAO
audits. In the most recent OIG 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.'' A previous OIG audit, No. 88-42, February
1988, reached the same conclusion. A separate audit, No. 95-I-1402,
September 1995, performed on one of BIA's largest irrigation projects,
Wapato Indian Irrigation Project, reinforced the general findings of
the OIG on the BIA's irrigation program. This audit 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 are 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 the BIA respond to removing O&M subsidies for trust land?
In the past, BIA has provided limited appropriated funds to
irrigation projects to assist the projects in their operations and
maintenance and, at a few projects, subsidized the O&M costs for trust
lands. Unfortunately, the BIA does not have sufficient discretionary
funding to continue this practice in the future. Without the necessary
rate increases, the impact to projects as a result of the lack of
adequate O&M funds could result in the inability to deliver water and
maintain irrigation system components adequately.
How does BIA respond to concerns about drainage of water off farm lands
and on-farm improvements?
The BIA is responsible for the O&M of the irrigation delivery
system and is not responsible for on-farm activities. In 25 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 171.8, Surface Drainage, it states
that the water users are responsible for surface drainage resulting
from their irrigation practices.
How does BIA respond to concerns about non-delivery of water to water
users with outstanding O&M charges?
The BIA's irrigation O&M regulations, 25 CFR 171.17, require
payment of annual O&M assessments before irrigation water may be
delivered. This requirement includes delinquent payments and balances
that have been referred to the Department of the Treasury pursuant to
the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 and Federal debt collection
standards at 31 CFR Part 901.
The Following comments Are Specific to Walker River Irrigation Project,
Nevada
The Walker River Paiute Tribe (Tribe) objects to the proposed O&M
rate increase from $7.32 to $10.00 per acre because: (1) Weber Dam and
Reservoir are subject to interim operating criteria for safety of dams
reasons, which require the operation of the Reservoir at lower
elevations than are normal, and the water users thereby receive a
reduced amount of stored water; (2) BIA failed to justify the increased
O&M rate; (3) it is a breach of trust duty for the BIA to increase the
O&M rate; and (4) the rate increase violates Federal law.
How does the BIA respond to objections that raising the O&M rates when
the safety of dams project may shorten water delivery time and that the
BIA failed to justify the rate increase?
Weber Dam Operations--In CY 2007, water supply shortages are more
likely to be caused by the below average snowfall and precipitation in
the basin (less than 40 percent of normal this year according to the
National Resources Conservation Service) than by the interim operating
criteria at Weber Dam. The Tribe and the BIA have worked closely in CY
2007 to manage the safety of dams repair activities in a way to
minimize inconvenience to the water users in the Project. The BIA's O&M
costs to operate the Project in 2007 remain the same regardless of the
available water supply in the system.
BIA's O&M Budget Justification--BIA provided a detailed O&M budget
justification to the Project water users on May 23, 2006, and the O&M
budget justification was discussed with the Project water users again
on September 28, 2006. The budget justification shows that the
increased O&M rate proposed for 2007 still does not cover all of BIA's
costs for O&M of the Project and does not include funds to maintain a
reserve fund or to pay for deferred maintenance costs.
How does the BIA respond to comments regarding breaching its trust
duty?
The BIA disagrees that increasing O&M rates for Indian irrigation
projects violates any trust duty to Indian tribes. The BIA, pursuant to
25 U.S.C. 381 et seq. and 25 CFR part 171, has responsibilities to
administer constructed Indian irrigation projects, set rates, collect
assessments, and make decisions regarding water delivery on BIA
irrigation projects. The BIA must collect O&M assessments in order to
operate and maintain the irrigation infrastructure. Over time, costs of
[[Page 19952]]
operating and maintaining the projects increase, and rates must be
adjusted accordingly to enable the BIA to continue to provide
irrigation services. This is particularly true because O&M rates are
the only regular source of funding for the BIA's irrigation projects.
Contrary to the assertion of the commenter, there is no fiduciary
obligation for the Department's O&M of irrigation projects. See, e.g.,
Grey v. United States, 21 Cl. Ct. 285 (1990), aff'd, 935 F.2d 281 (Fed.
Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1057 (1992).
How does the BIA respond to the rate increase that violates federal
law?
The Tribe stated that ``* * * 25 U.S.C. Section 385 states that
costs incurred by the BIA may be reimbursed by farmers only if the
farmers have adequate funds to repay the Government.'' This statement
misconstrues 25 U.S.C. 385. The Secretary's authorization to set O&M
charges is not subject to a determination of an individual's ability to
pay. The provision quoted from 25 U.S.C. 385 refers only to repayment
of construction costs. 25 U.S.C. 385 codifies several separate
provisions taken from the Act of August 14, 1914, Pub. L. 63-160, 38
Stat. 582, 583. In addition to authorizing the Secretary to set and
assess O&M rates on irrigation projects, the 1914 Act also appropriated
a lump sum of money to use for construction of irrigation projects. The
second provision of 25 U.S.C. 385, regarding reimbursement of
construction costs where Indians have the ability to pay, only applies
to the construction money appropriated in the 1914 Act and does not
relate to the Secretary's O&M rate-setting authority.
The following comment is specific to San Carlos Irrigation
Project--Joint Works (SCIP-JW).
How does BIA respond to concerns regarding how funds collected from
stakeholders are expended on O&M; the amount of project reserve funds,
income and expenditures; and the timeliness of the rate adjustment
notice?
By letter dated January 22, 2007, an Attorney for the San Carlos
Irrigation and Drainage District (District) submitted comments on the
proposed 2008 budget and O&M rate for the San Carlos Irrigation Project
(Project). On August 8, 2006, the District filed a Complaint in the
United States Court of Federal Claims (Case No. 06-576C). The Complaint
raises most of the same factual and legal issues the District raised in
its comments about the Project's proposed O&M rate and budget for 2008.
Because Federal court litigation is pending concerning most of the
issues raised in the District's comments on the proposed 2008 O&M rate
and budget, specific responses to these issues will not be discussed
here.
As noted in the District's comments, on or before December 31,
2007, the Project and the District will learn whether the provisions of
the Arizona Water Settlement Act (Settlement Act) are deemed effective,
which will then trigger the timelines for establishment of the Joint
Works Board under the Settlement Act. This process will require the
Project and the affected water users to clarify and evaluate future O&M
rates, activities and costs, and responsibilities as required by the
Settlement Act and implementing agreements.
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 if 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 BIA 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, P.O. Box 40, Pablo, MT
59855-0040, Telephone: (406) 675-
2700.
Fort Hall Irrigation Project...... Eric J. LaPointe, Superintendent,
Alan Oliver, Supervisory General
Engineer, Fort Hall Agency, P.O.
Box 220, Fort Hall, ID 83203-0220,
Telephone: (208) 238-2301.
Wapato Irrigation Project......... Pierce Harrison, Project
Administrator, Wapato Irrigation
Project, P.O. Box 220, Wapato, WA
98951-0220, Telephone: (509) 877-
3155.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rocky Mountain Region Contacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Parisian, Acting Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Rocky
Mountain Regional Office, 316 North 26th Street, Billings, Montana
59101, Telephone: (406) 247-7943.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackfeet Irrigation Project...... Stephen Pollock, Superintendent, Ted
Hall, Irrigation Project Manager,
Box 880, Browning, MT 59417,
Telephones: (406) 338-7544,
Superintendent, (406) 338-7519,
Irrigation Project Manager.
Crow Irrigation Project........... Ed Lone Fight, Superintendent, Karl
Helvik, Irrigation Project Manager,
P.O. Box 69, Crow Agency, MT 59022,
Telephones: (406) 638-2672,
Superintendent, (406) 638-2863,
Irrigation Project Manager.
Fort Belknap Irrigation Project... Judy Gray, Superintendent, Ralph
Leo, Irrigation Project Manager,
R.R.1, Box 980, Harlem, MT 59526,
Telephones: (406) 353-2901,
Superintendent, (406) 353-2905,
Irrigation Project Manager.
[[Page 19953]]
Fort Peck Irrigation Project...... Vacant, Superintendent, P.O. Box
637, Poplar, MT 59255, Vacant,
Irrigation Manager 602 6th Avenue
North, Wolf Point, MT 59201,
Telephones: (406) 768-5312,
Superintendent, (406) 653-1752,
Irrigation Manager.
Wind River Irrigation Project..... George Gover, Superintendent, Ray
Nation, Acting Irrigation Project
Manager, P.O. Box 158, Fort
Washakie, WY 82514, Telephones:
(307) 332-7810, Superintendent,
(307) 332-2596, Irrigation Project
Manager.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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..... Ross P. Denny, Superintendent, John
Formea, Irrigation Engineer, P.O.
Box 315, Ignacio, CO, 81137-0315,
Telephones: (970) 563-4511,
Superintendent, (970) 563-1017,
Irrigation Engineer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western Region Contacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Anspach Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Western
Regional Office, Two Arizona Center 400 N. 5th Street, 12th floor,
Phoenix, Arizona 85004, Telephone: (602) 379-6600
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado River Irrigation Project. Perry Baker, Superintendent, Ted
Henry, Irrigation Project Manager,
R.R. 1 Box 9-C, Parker, AZ 85344,
Telephone: (928) 669-7111.
Duck Valley Irrigation Project.... Robert Hunter, Acting
Superintendent, 1555 Shoshone
Circle, Elko, NV 89801, Telephone:
(775) 738-0569.
Fort Yuma Irrigation Project...... Sam Rideshorse, Superintendent P.O.
Box 11000, Yuma, AZ 85366,
Telephone: (520) 782-1202.
San Carlos Irrigation Project Carl Christensen, Supervisory
Joint Works. General Engineer, P.O. Box 250,
Coolidge, AZ 85228, Telephone:
(520) 723-6216.
San Carlos Irrigation Project Joe Revak, Supervisory General
Indian Works. Engineer, Pima Agency, Land
Operations, Box 8, Sacaton, AZ,
85247, Telephone: (520) 562-3372.
Uintah Irrigation Project......... Lynn Hansen, Irrigation Manager,
P.O. Box 130, Fort Duchesne, UT
84026, Telephone: (435) 722-4341.
Walker River Irrigation Project... Robert Hunter, Superintendent, 311
E. Washington Street, Carson City,
NV 89701, Telephone: (775) 887-
3500.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What irrigation assessments or charges are proposed for adjustment by
this notice?
The rate table below contains the 2007 final rates for all of our
irrigation projects where we recover our costs for operation and
maintenance. The table also contains the proposed and final rates for
the 2008 season and subsequent years where applicable. An asterisk
immediately following the name of the project notes the irrigation
projects where rates are have been adjusted.
Northwest Region Rate Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final 2006 Final 2007
Project name Rate category rate rate Final 2008 rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flathead Irrigation Project....... Basic Per acre--A... $21.45 $23.45 $23.45.
Basic Per acre--B... 10.75 10.75 10.75.
Minimum Charge per 65.00 65.00 65.00.
tract.
Fort Hall Irrigation Project*..... Basic Per acre...... 24.00 27.00 To be determined.
Minimum Chare per 25.00 25.00
tract.
Fort Hall Irrigation Project-- Basic Per acre...... 15.00 17.00
Minor Units*. Minimum Charge per 25.00 25.00
tract.
Fort Hall Irrigation Project-- Basic Per acre...... 34.00 35.75
Michaud*. Pressure Per acre... 48.50 50.00
Minimum Charge per 25.00 25.00
tract.
Wapato Irrigation Project-- Billing Charge Per 5.00 5.00
Toppenish/Simcoe Units*. Tract. 13.50 14.00
Farm unit/land
tracts up to one
acre (minimum
charge).
Farm unit/land 13.50 14.00
tracts up to one
acre--per acre.
Wapato Irrigation Project--Ahtanum Billing Charge Per 5.00 5.00
Units*. Tract. 13.50 14.00
Farm unit/land
tracts up to one
acre (minimum
charge).
Farm unit/land 13.50 14.00
tracts up to one
acre.
Wapato Irrigation Project--Satus Billing Charge Per 5.00 5.00
Unit*. Tract. 53.00 55.00
Farm unit/land
tracts up to one
acre (minimum
charge).
``A'' farm unit/land 53.00 55.00
tracts over one
acre--per acre.
Additional Works 58.00 60.00
farm unit/land
tracts over one
acre--per acre.
[[Page 19954]]
``B'' farm unit/land 63.00 65.00
tracts over one
acre--per acre.
Water Rental 64.50 67.00
Agreement Lands--
per acre.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rocky Mountain Region Rate Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final 2006 Final 2007
Project name Rate category rate rate Final 2008 rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackfeet Irrigation Project*..... Basic-per acre...... 13.00 15.50 To be determined.
Crow Irrigation Project--Willow * Basic-per acre...... 17.30 19.30
Creek O&M (includes Agency, Lodge
Grass 1, Lodge Grass
2, Reno, Upper Little
Horn, and Forty Mile Units).
Crow Irrigation * Project--All Basic-per acre...... 17.00 19.00
Others (includes Bighorn, Soap
Creek, and Pryor Units).
Crow Irrigation Two Leggins Basic-per acre...... 2.00 2.00
Drainage District.
Fort Belknap * Irrigation Project. Trust Land per acre. 8.50 13.88 20.00.
non-Trust Land per 17.00 18.50 20.00.
acre.
Fort Peck Irrigation Project*..... Basic-per acre...... 17.50 20.00 To be determined.
Wind River Irrigation Project*.... Basic-per acre...... 14.00 15.00
Wind River Irrigation Project-- Basic-per acre...... 17.00 17.00
LeClair District.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Region Rate Table
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final 2006 Final 2007
Project name Rate category rate rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pine River Irrigation Minimum Charge $50.00 $50.00
Project*. per tract. 13.00 150.00
Basic-per acre.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western Region Rate Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final 2006 Final 2007 Proposed 2008 Proposed 2009
Project name Rate category rate rate rate rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado River Irrigation Basic per acre up $47.00 $47.00 To be determined. To be
Project. to 5.75 acre- 17.00 17.00 determined.
feet.
Excess Water per
acre-foot over
5.75 acre-feet.
Duck Valley Irrigation Project Basic-per acre... 5.30 5.30
Fort Yuma Irrigation Project Basic-per acre up 65.00 72.00
(See Note 1)*. to 5.0 acre-feet. 10.50 10.50
Excess Water per
acre-foot over
5.0 acre-feet.
San Carlos Irrigation Project Basic-per acre... 30.00 30.00 $21.00 Final 2008 $21.00. Final
(Joint Works)* (See Note Rate. 2009 Rate.
2).
San Carlos Irrigation Project Basic-per acre... 77.00 77.00 To be determined. To be
(Indian Works). determined.
Uintah Irrigation Project..... Basic-per acre... 12.00 12.00
Minimum Bill..... 12.00 25.00
Walker River Irrigation Indian per acre.. 7.32 10.00 13.00............ $16.00.
Project*.
Non-Indian per 15.29 16.00 16.00............ $16.00.
acre.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Notes irrigation projects where rates are have been adjusted.
Note 1--The O&M rate for the Fort Yuma Irrigation Project has two components. The first component is
the O&M rate established by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the owner and operator of the Project. The BOR
rate for 2007 has been established at $65 which is an increase from the $62 rate in 2006. The second component
is for the O&M rate established by BIA to cover administrative costs, including billing and collections for
the Project. Through this notice, the BIA is establishing a $7/acre O&M rate for its component of the rate.
The BIA rate assessment would cover approximately 50 percent of the accounting technician and 40 percent of
the Natural Resource Officer at the BIA Fort Yuma Agency.
Note 2--The 2008 and 2009 irrigation rates are final through this notice. The 2007 rate was established
by final notice published in the Federal Register on April 5, 2006 (Vol. 71, No. 65, page 17131).
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, and
costs of administration, operation, maintenance,
[[Page 19955]]
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 increase 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.
Federalism (Executive Order 13132)
The Department has determined that these rate adjustments do not
have significant Federalism effects because they pertain 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 August 31,
2009.
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: April 12, 2007.
Carl J. Artman,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. E7-7558 Filed 4-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-W7-P
