Laserfiche WebLink
Members , Colorado Water Conservation Board <br /> and Colorado Water Congress Executive Committee <br /> November 29, 1979 <br /> Page two <br /> of funding flood control and recreation projects in an amount <br /> not to exceed 50 percent of a project's cost or $1 million, <br /> whichever is less (i.e. , existing Board policy on the pro- <br /> portion of a project's total cost which can be funded from <br /> the construction fund shall be extended to flood control and <br /> recreation projects) . <br /> 4. Discussion. <br /> A. The Board's construction fund was originally designed to be a <br /> continuing revolving fund which, in the long run, would be <br /> self-sustaining by virtue of the revenues which it generated <br /> (see 37-60-119 and. -121) . In order to achieve this goal, the <br /> capital construction costs of each project, regardless of <br /> project purpose, must be recovered. If they are not, the fund <br /> could be depleted over time. In the opinion of the staff, the <br /> making of grants to local entities, especially for flood con- <br /> trol purposes , would indeed lead. to this result since the <br /> demand for outright grants would probably be quite high. Thus, <br /> I concluded that it would be preferable for the Board to adopt <br /> a policy requiring full reimbursement on flood control and <br /> recreation projects in order to preserve the integrity of the <br /> revolving fund concept. <br /> B. The other major factor taken into account in arriving at the <br /> staff recommendation was that the beneficiaries of flood con-. <br /> trol projects are usually readily identifiable. This being <br /> the case, I feel that it is always best to impose costs on <br /> those who would benefit from a project as long as no insur- <br /> mountable administrative problems are created by the need to <br /> collect payments from such beneficiaries. In this instance, <br /> ad valorem property taxes can easily be assessed by local <br /> units of government on those properties benefiting from a <br /> flood control project. <br /> C. Arguments against the policy embodied in the staff's recom- <br /> mendation which I took into account are as follows : <br /> (1) Historically, federal and state programs have provided <br /> grants for flood control projects. This was done because <br />