Laserfiche WebLink
sponsors. Bill was heard in Senate but never got out of <br /> sub-committee. Hearings were not held in the House. <br /> C. In its legislative report on the bill, the Administration <br /> took the position that the act should be amended to <br /> provide that the 25% of project costs which are now <br /> repayable without interest should either become repayable <br /> with interest or be payable at the time of construction. <br /> D. The Lower Basin states have taken the position that the 7 <br /> states should support amending the act to finance 25% of <br /> project costs with power revenues (see attached memo from <br /> Myron Holburt dated January 28 , 1983 ) . <br /> E . The other 3 Upper Basin states seem agreeable to this. <br /> F. Colorado has indicated that it finds the proposal of the <br /> Lower Basin states objectionable. Colorado has taken the <br /> position that proposals to use power revenues to finance <br /> new programs cannot be supported until the other states <br /> are willing to discuss and support efforts to bring to <br /> fruition the water resources development opportunities <br /> contemplated for Colorado in the 1956 and 1968 Acts. <br /> gl <br /> Encls : as stated <br /> -4- <br />