Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />"3,j8f1 <br />~ J ~J ~ \j <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />With the exception of the Animas-La Plata Project, which is an integral part of <br />the Indian reserved rights settlement, it is now widely accepted that none of the <br />remaining unbuilt projects authorized under the 1956 Colorado River Basin <br />Storage Project Act will ever be constructed in their original configurations. The <br />most recent example of this reality is the process that led to the passage of the <br />Central Utah Project Completion Act, one of the titles in HR 429. In 1987, in <br />an attempt to obtain funding for the completion of the Central Utah Project, the <br />Utah Congressional delegation attempted the "traditional" approach to water <br />project financing, through the introduction of a simple authorization bill. The bill <br />went nowhere. It was not until the water users had entirely revamped the bill to <br />address environmental concerns that it was in a position to move. The final <br />enacted version contains detailed and comprehensive environmental mitigation and <br />enhancement, including the establishment of a Utah Reclamation Mitigation and <br />Conservation Commission, funded as a part of Project costs, to acquire water <br />rights for instream flows and study and implement mitigation and conservation <br />opportunities. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />In light of the foregoing, power revenues generated under the apportionment <br />formula established in Section 5 of the 1956 CRSP Act, which were anticipated <br />to have been available for certain costs of development of participating projects <br />in Colorado (including San Miguel, West Divide, Fruitland Mesa, and Savory-Pot <br />Hook), will not be available to anything but the general treasury, since such <br />revenues may be used only for the repayment of that portion of such projects <br />allocated to irrigation, above the irrigator's ability to repay. In other words, the <br />apportionment formula established under the 1956 Act may have value to <br />Colorado only under the assumption that all participating projects will be built. <br />Otherwise, revenues generated under the formula only serve to drive up power <br />rates while failing to generate any benefit for Colorado water users. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Within Colorado, major new water development comes at a terribly high <br />environmental and economic cost. A critical evaluation needs to be made of the <br />viability of pursuing the traditional approach of major project development, in <br />light of these costs, the true foreseeable need, and the alternative of better <br />management of existing facilities. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The most obvious challenge to water use and development in Colorado is the <br />imposition of federal regulatory control, primarily through the Endangered <br />Species Act and the Clean Water Act. This control not only makes future <br />development opportunities problematic, but also threatens the existing yield of <br />important water supply projects. <br /> <br />Rather than complain about the imposition of federal regulatory control, Colorado should <br />recognize the realities of new Western water policy, and should continue to proactively work <br />with the federal government and other states to successfully resolve these issues. Some <br /> <br />8 <br />