Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ZUI4 <br /> <br />MR. PETERSON: <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: <br />MR. BUNGER: <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: <br /> <br />repayment ability of such district what the <br />maximum levy would produce. If the district <br />raises the money in another manner, it doesn't <br />seem to me it should make any difference to <br />the Secretary where the money comes from." <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />"In connection with that, I believe that <br />representation should be made to the Secre- <br />tary or to the Commissioner of Reclamation <br />that in submitting their feasibility reports <br />that reference to the ad valorem tax should be <br />omitted because it leaves the impression with <br />the local people that the Secretary of the <br />Interior is establishing and setting a certain <br />mill levy for the district, when they go in <br />on their feasibility reports (which, I under- <br />stand, is just an estimate as far as that is <br />concerned); because to the average water user <br />it does leave the impression that there is no <br />alternative to that. That, to be acceptable, <br />there must be an ad valorem tax assessed which <br />would be the maximum according to the dictates <br />of the Secretary of the Interior." <br /> <br />"Did Mr. Bunger have a comment?" <br /> <br />"Not on this. I have another question <br />when you get off this." <br /> <br />"All right. Is there any further dis- <br />cussion on the question Mr. Peterson has <br />raised?" <br /> <br />"I might add just a little bit of an ex- <br />planation on that. ':Ie have tossed this idea <br />around and if you will note in the comments <br />which we have prepared on the Fruitland Mesa <br />Project, we recommended that the project re- <br />port be revised somewhat to make it clear that <br />it was within the discretion of the board of <br />directors of the conservancy district as to <br />how the money was raised. Now generally <br />speaking, that is so in any event. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Bhat has created a problem is the fact <br />that under Public Law 485, the repayment by <br />the water users is generally quite small in <br />comparison with the overall cost of the proj- <br />ect. The remainder of the expense is paid <br />from project revenues from power. It should <br />