small; however, as a project progresses and farms become established,
repayment capacity is likely to increase substantially. If so, it is only
fair that irrigators being favored with a substantial Federal subsidy
should assume a larger measure of responsibility. Additionally, over
the course of a given project contract of 40 or 50 years, economic con-
ditions and technology will change and inflation could substantially
dilute the dollar; the reassessment provision would permit recogni-
tion of these factors. The reassessment provision would not guarantee
a rate increase every 5 years; nor would it be one-sided. In a period of
a serious economic down-turn, a rate reassessment could reflect adverse
conditions. We consider the reassessment provisions to be desirable.
The renegotiation provision would not apply to repayment contracts
negotiated under section 9(d) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939.
We note, however, that section 9(d) does permit variable payment
rates negotiated at the inception of the contract.
 Section 10 (b) of our amendments requires that repayment for any
portion of a delivery system constructed as part of a reclamation pro-
ject should comence within 1 year after that portion of a delivery
system begins to regularly deliver water. This recognizes that project
beneficiaries should begin repayment when the benefits of a project
begin to accure. In a number of cases serious abuses have occurred
when project facilities have been in operation for a number of years
delivering benefits before repayment has commenced. The provision
recognizes outstanding commitments for "development period"
privileges allowed by sections 7 and 9 of the Reclamation Project Act
of 1939, and allows future application of those provisions in potential
hardship situations. We recognize it may take time to initiate cash-
producing crops, although 10 years may be too long. While it is not
our intention to negate those provisions of the 1939 Act, it should be
understood in current and future applications of the development
period provisions of that law that they were written in a time of
extreme economic hardship, particularly for farmers, and such ex-
treme conditions do not pertain today. Moreover, other government
programs have been developed to forestall economic hardship among
farmers.
 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN CONTRACTING
 S. 14 does not address this issue. We support the concept of public
participation in the contracting process, and this position is consist-
ent with the findings and recommendations contained in the report of
the Special Task Force on the San Luis Unit, published January
1, 1978, pursuant to Public Law 95-46.
 We recognize that decisions of great importance, which significant-
ly affect both project beneficiaries and those outside the project, are
made in the contract negotiation process. All affected parties should
have the opportunity for knowledge of pending proceedings and for
input into the process. It is also true that in the actual negotiations
there may be times when direct public participation may be im-
practicable. We believe that our recommendation for public participa-
tion, which is found at Sec. 11 of our amendments, is fair to those
interested in any given project or contract proceeding. The provi-
sions are similar to H.R. 6335 and H.R. 10243 in the 95th Congress and