Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. . . fund is to be . . . held in trust as a <br />replacement for depleted natural resources <br />and for the development and conservation of <br />the state's water resources pursuant to . . <br />[the Board's construction fund statutes]. <br />. . . Repayment of moneys from the severance <br />tax trust fund used for state water projects <br />shall be required in the authorization and <br />contract for each such project, and moneys so <br />repaid shall be credi ted to the . . . fund. <br />32-29-109(1), C.R.S. 1973, as amended. <br /> <br />t <br /> <br />No water projects have ever been authorized for construction using <br />this fund as a source of financing. <br /> <br />with the present projection, the severance tax trust fund <br />will con.tain $47,000,000 by the end of the 82-83 fiscal year. It <br />is also projected that the fund will increase to $51,000,000 by <br />the end of the 83-84 fiscal year. <br /> <br />Potential projects <br /> <br />There is a maximum of nine proposed projects which could be <br />ready for the Board's consideration at the next meeting. We are <br />in the process of having feasibility studies finalized and trying <br />to get decisions from those project sponsors who are not yet sure <br />if they wish to proceed. A very brief description of each of - the <br />potential projects is provided in the attachment. <br /> <br />It appears that several issues of first impression may be <br />raised by one or more of these proj ects. These issues are very <br />briefly described in the paragraphs which follow. <br /> <br />1. Funding Source <br /> <br />If all nine projects are submitted, the sums requested will <br />probably exceed the monies available in the construction fund. If . <br />this is the case, should the Board for the first time recommend <br />the use of the severance tax trust fund? If so, which projects <br />and why? Alternatively, should the Board recommend additional <br />appropriations for the construction fund? Absent sufficient <br />funding, the Board would have to decide between projects using <br />priorities. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />2. Project Evaluation Criteria <br /> <br />Heretofore, the feasibility studies required by the Board <br />have focused primarily on engineering and design considerations <br />and on an anal ysis of the proj ect sponsor's abil i ty to repay the <br />Board's investment. Economic evaluations (i.e., benefit-cost <br />analyses) have, for good reasons, been rather cursory. <br />Environmental analyses have not been employed to any significant <br />extent, primarily because the projects dealt with in the past <br />have, with one or two exceptions, had no, or only nominal, <br />impacts. <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />-2- <br /> <br />9/30/82 <br />