Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />i <br />House Document No. 475 p~esented, ~o cost'allocation data, whatsoeve~, <br /> <br />for the facilities initially proposed for const~uction by the Corp$ <br /> <br />of Engineers, Neithe~ did this rePort p~opose a plan of powe~ <br />marketing, distribution, or repa~ent. <br /> <br />Senate Document No. 247 likewise presented no discussion of criteria <br /> <br />for financial management, <br /> <br />I <br />Therefore, in the absence of costlal10eations studies, repayment <br />I <br />i <br />studies, and clear-cut expre$sion~ of ~epayment criteria by the <br /> <br />Congress in the authodzing ects .nd legislative history, it is <br />impossible to establish the relative financial feasibility of the <br /> <br />l)dginal authol'i;::ed plan. Accord+ngly, there is no precise standalfd <br /> <br />, <br />of reference with which subsequen~ analyses can be compared. <br />! <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />FINANCIAL 'HISTORY <br /> <br />I <br />The reco~ded history of financial !management of the Missouri River! <br />, i <br />I <br />Basin P~oject actually dates f~0Ill!1950 with the prepa~ation and <br />! i <br />, , I <br />publication of Report on pro~osedlInterim Rate Schedule fo~ Misso~i <br />! ' <br /> <br />River Basin Project, dated ,iarch 1950. This report p~esentad the <br />I <br />, <br /> <br />results of a cost allocation and tepayment study prepared to deter1 <br />I ! <br />mine the rates at which power wou+d need to be marketed to repay <br />I <br />I <br />project costs. It also promulgattd schedules for <br /> <br />i <br />, <br />the various clas~es <br /> <br />, <br />of power and ene~gy expected to b~ produc~d. The criteria fo~ a11qca- <br /> <br />tion and repayment of costs employed in this report are s~a~izedi <br /> <br />i <br />, <br />4 <br />