Laserfiche WebLink
We would also need to consider a means to enlist the support of other stakeholders <br />to get this passed. For CREDA, a selling point might be that at the end of the <br />capitalization period, state apportionments go away. This would represent a large <br />future savings to power users. We may also wish to add elements that could help <br />the Upper Basin and San Juan Recovery Implementation Programs in order to gain <br />support of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and environmental groups. If action <br />to make these changes were taken now, we may also benefit from the current <br />emphasis on stimulating the economy by funding infrastructure. <br />If the Commission decided to pursue this alternative there are many details that will <br />need to be addressed. Some of these issues may include: <br />1. Currently, excess money accrues in the Basin Fund as specific <br />apportionments to the four Upper Division States. Would we pursue four <br />separate revolving funds, providing money to increase existing state loan <br />programs, or would we pursue one consolidated revolving fund? Since the. <br />monies could be loaned and then repayments re- loaned, perhaps the flexibility <br />of a large single fund may be something to consider. <br />2. How would the fund be administered? Existing state loan programs <br />would have their own structure. A single fund could use the Commission as <br />an authorizing body and perhaps could use the current accounting staff of <br />Reclamation. <br />There are many additional details to consider. The purpose of this paper is to provide <br />enough background for Commissioners to provide direction on areas that they would like to <br />have further developed and researched. <br />7 <br />