WSP09752 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . II-II costs paid by the M&I water users. Table 10 on page 44 of the 1982 Rate Ilro- chure shows the derivation of the amount of irrigation repayment aid required from power revenues. The issue here is an apparent inconsistency between what was done in the FY 1977 PRS and the FY 1981 PRS. In the FY 1977 PRS, the total net to be paid by power revenues was $72,463,000. In Western's FY 1981 counterpart that figure had risen to $84,779,000. The following table gives a comparison of the computations of those two amounts. FY 1977 FY 1981 Less: Suballocation to M&I M&I Surplus 11,214,000 22,979,000 $ 72,463,000 6,698,000 19,658,000 ~ .19 J!(1_~tl I", "'!0'.1(1 , ' Irrigation Investment $106,656,000 $111,135,000 Net $ 84,779,000 As can be seen, while irrigation investment increases by about $4.5 million, that portion paid by M&I revenues decreases by about $8 million. Noth- ing in the 1982 Rate Brochure addresses or explains either why storage unit irrigation investment went up with all units completed or why the amount allo- cated to and revenue received from M&I went down. At the November 16, 1982 Public Information Forum the reason for the increase in storage unit irrigation investment was not known by Western representatives, but they indicated that irrigation investment and the amount allocated to M&I do not necessarily corre- late. Western's response to one of our questions at the Public Information Forum indicated that an anticipated water contract did not materialize result- ing in a revision downward of the M&I allocation.