WSP09546 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OCT-08-96 11.21 FROH.H.B.S.S. 10.970 247 8827 PAGE 12/18 00 L'" legislation in this regard was packaged with, and contingent upon, making power revenues payable to the Upper Division states. c: Rescopinq of Authorized Projects At the January 5-6 meeting, the Board directed that I work with interested parties to resco~e Colorado's four remaining authori~ed projects. To that end, meetings have been held with the San Miguel, West Divide, and Fruitland-Mesa Water Conservancy Districts and the conceptual outlines of new projects for each cistrict have been worked out 'with them. The staff is also L~ the process of re-examining the Savery-?otho~~ project. While the three above-mentioned districts have all indicated a willingness to proceed with the rescoping of new projects for their districts, each has indicated that they will need more detailed information about the configuration of, and water ceveloped by, any rescoped project before they can reach a final decision on how to proceed. As a corollary, each has also indicated that they could not consider the de-authorization of their federal project until they were assured that any rescoped project would in fact be financed with CRSP power revenues payable directly to the state. In order to respond to these legitimate concerns, I believe that the Board should provide funding to quickly do reconnais- sance studies of the rescoped projects which have been outlined with the three districts. The authority to provide such funding from the ewCB construction fund is found in section 37-60-122(1)(c), C.R.S. 1973, as amended, which states that: -The board may also cause a feasibility report to be prepared on any other water project proposed in this state whether funded by t.he ... construction fund or by any other source or entity .. See the "Recommendations" section belOW' for my thoughts on hOW' to proceec in this regard. Other Projects Aa the attached detailed outline of Colorado's proposal indicates CRSP power revenues are sought only ~or the financing of enough water projects to achieve the level of development contemplated by Colorado's remaining four authorized projects. These authorized projects represent what Colorado bargained for and got. We l:lelieve that revenues from the CRSP power system should be made available to finance an equivalent level of development if Congress is going to renege on its obligation to fund authorized projects in the Upper Basin. Since the rescoping of the authorized projec~s, as discussed above, will result in substantially smaller projects, the rescoped projects will not achieve the originally contemplated level of development. Therefore, at this time Colorado must either identify additional projects for developing the waters of the Colorado River system which would be financed with CRSP power MEMORANDUM -3- February 14, 1984