Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> irrigators of the obligation to repay the united States for the <br /> costs of construction which were beyond their f inancial ability to <br /> repay, the general fund of the U. S. Treasury did not go unrei:n- <br /> bursed. To the contrary, revenues generated from the sale of hydro- <br /> electric power produced at reclamation projects were used to repay <br /> to the federal treasury that portion of construction costs which the <br /> irrigator could not repay. <br /> Given this history of the use of power revenues to- offset <br /> the costs of reclamation projects , the creation of the Upper Colorado <br /> River Basin Fund (the Basin Fund) in the 1956 CRS? Act was not unique <br /> except for one feature: revenues which accrue to the Basin Fund from <br /> the generation of hydropower at the CRS? storage units are not avail- <br /> able for just any reclamation project, but only for "participating <br /> projects" in the Upper Basin. Since the customers who purchase CRS? <br /> power are located almost entirely within the four Upper Basin states <br /> (the major exception being the Salt River Project in Arizona) , it is <br /> primarily the citizens of the states benefited by participating <br /> projects, not the U. S. taxpayer at large, who foot the bill for <br /> that portion of the cost of a participating project' s irrigation <br /> features which is beyond the ability of the irrigator to repay. <br /> In general, the Basin Fund works as follows : <br /> (1) Construction funds for a participating project must be <br /> appropriated by Congress from the general fund of the J. S. <br /> Treasury, which appropriations are credited to the Basin Fund <br /> as advances (i.e. , "loans" are made from the general fund to <br /> the Basin Fund) . <br /> -2- <br />