C150002 Approval letter - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

" .~ , between 10% and 20% of the funding for capital projects in order to convince Congress to assure approximately 50% federal funding (the remaining 30% to 40% is expected to be derived from CRSP power revenues). The BOR indicates it is planning to request approximately $7 million of the estimated $8.4 million total cost4 (it has $1.7 million in its FY97 budget for this project). Chuck and I have discussed this proposal with the Colorado Water Congress State Affairs Committee and its new "Subcommittee for CWC Relations with the Colorado Water Conservation Board," and I believe we have made substantial progress addressing their reservations. The primary concerns they have raised with respect to this proposal (voiced most ardently by representatives of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the City of Colorado Springs, but shared to some extent by most Committee and Subcommittee members) are related to the use of the Construction Fund to make grants, rather than loans, to support ESA-motivated programs and to relieve water project beneficiaries of operation and maintenance expenses. We anticipate that the Water Congress will support the recommendation described below. My recommendation is motivated primarily by the need to assure continued success of the Recovery Program in completing recovery actions within the established schedule for Section 7 consultation purposes and by the cost-share aspects of our long- term funding negotiations. Directing this proposed funding to the Recovery Program, instead of the GVWUA, is intended to highlight Colorado's continuing contribution to the success of recovery efforts. Discussions with the DNR Executive Director's Office indicate that it is highly unlikely that general funds (i.e., state tax revenues) might be directed by the General Assembly to this purpose, especially given the benefits to the water community and the availability of Construction Fund resources. The use of funds from the "Fish and Wildlife Resources Account" within the CWCB Construction Fund is recommended on the basis that it would be consistent with the statutory purpose for that Account (i.e., to make grants which recognize the responsibility of the state for fish and wildlife resources found in and around state waters which are affected by the construction, operation, or maintenance of water diversion, delivery, or storage facilities), even though this proposal has not followed the statutory process for such grants, and that very few requests for funding from this Account have been proposed in the manner originally indicated in the 1987 legislative deliberations. A copy of the pertinent statutory provisions is attached for your review. Recommendation I recommend that the Board seek legislative authorization for a grant of $1.25 million (i.e., approximately 15% of the $8.4 million planning, design, NEP A compliance, construction and operation cost) from the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Account in the CWCB Construction Fund: e e 4 This estimate includes the cost of planning and feasibility studies, NEPA compliance, design and construction by the BOR as well as the BOR's estimate of increased operation and maintenance requirements during the next 50 years. - 4