My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP12076
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
12000-12999
>
WSP12076
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 3:19:48 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 5:22:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.300.40.B
Description
Upper Colorado River Compact
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
1/1/1991
Author
Paul Upsons
Title
A Leader and Antagonist: Historical Forces Leading to Colorado's Influnce in Meeting Five of the Upper Colorado River Compact Commission (Honors Thesis for U. of Denver History Dept)
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />41 <br /> <br />be some and there will be some loss to Moffat County in <br />taxes. I'lhen we get before the Colorado leuislature, the <br />representatives are ]oing to say "What about our loss of <br />taxes? 137 <br /> <br />Breitenstein wanted a provision put into the compact that would allow <br /> <br />them an anSlver to this question. St.one cited a pre?cedent regarding an intra- <br /> <br />state matter, concerning the C-BT, in which $100,000 was paid to Grand County <br /> <br />to compensate? for the taxes they lost due to their land being submerged in a <br /> <br />reservoir. RElating this to the subject at hand, Breitenstein said that Colo- <br /> <br />rado might not receive any benefits at all from the proposed project at Echo <br /> <br />Pari;. Furthermore, some provision would have to be made addressing the question <br /> <br />of who will be charged for the 50,000 acre-feet per year of evaporation loss <br /> <br />on the reservoir. TtJere \Vould haVe? to be general principles to deal \Vi th the <br /> <br />various "rojects in the UP?er Basin that could "resent such difficult questions. <br /> <br />The Commission discussed compensations paid to Arizona and Nevada in the <br /> <br />form of payment.s in lieu of potential.taxes that might have accrued to those <br /> <br />states had that project been built by private enterprise. Ccmmissioner Stone <br /> <br />stated that he did not believe that such a provision for compensating for lost <br /> <br />potential taxes should or could be included in this com?act due to the fact that <br /> <br />this type of compensation would fall under tl,e exclusive jurisdiction of Congress <br /> <br />in authorizing projects. Instead, he proposed that a reimbursement be paid <br /> <br />for the loss of taxes which had previously been paid to a political subdivision <br /> <br />(such as a county, taxing unit, or school district within the stilte) in Ilhich <br /> <br />the reservoir \Vould be 10cated.138 In the case of Moffat County, for example, <br /> <br />the annual taxes assessed against lands during the ten years previous to the <br /> <br />submergence of the lands would be averaged, and Moffat County would receive this <br /> <br />average sum yearly from those who were using the water. Ttlis Idnd of settlement, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.