Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />For nonvendable products--I'm not sure what that is--but, presumably, <br />that could be fish and wildlife and recreation, .the states have to put <br />up 5 percent of that. Actually, on some of these today we have to put <br />up 50 percent. So I'm not sure how these policies are consistent. That <br />is, on added features to some projects the state has to come up with 50 <br />percent today under present law for recreational facilities. <br /> <br />The other cost-sharing feature has to do with flood control. And the <br />President's policy is that the state must put up 20 percent of that <br />amount--of that portion of the project dedicated to flood control. <br /> <br />That means rather substantial funding for projects that we have in <br />Colorado, if they are constructed, and for which we have not yet <br />received construction funds. In view of the success of the President <br />in vetoing the Public Works Appropriation Bill last year, there'simply <br />appears to be no purpose in plowing the same ground this year. I have <br />been in touch with some of the Congressional committees, particularly <br />the people that I know on the staffs of the various committees in <br />congress. They inform me that, in their opinion, Congress is in no <br />mood this year to jockey with the President on the Public Works Bill. <br />They are simply not going to make the fight that was made last year. <br />I don't know whether that staff assessment is correct, but that seems <br />to be the mood. <br /> <br />If we are going to be successful in moving forward with projects that <br />are authorized but not yet funded, we will have to come up with a <br />different approach. One way to do that is to meet the President on his <br />own ground. That is to provide the funding which he says will be the <br />criteria. This means a substantial amount of money, if we are to move <br />ahead with projects like the Narrows or San Miguel, Animas-La Plata, or <br />West Divide or Savery-Pot Hook or Fruitland Mesa--projects which are <br />authorized but which have not yet been funded. There appears to be little <br />or no likelihood of those projects being funded unless we do take a <br />different approach. The only approach that I can think of at this time <br />is to meet the President's criteria in state participation. <br /> <br />Taking all -these things into consideration, the leaders in the Legislature <br />and the GOvernor's office decided that the State, indeed, should be in <br />this field and we should have substantial funding. The Governor, in his <br />annual State of the State Message to the Legislature, recommended to the <br />Legislature that it dedicate one percent of the State's sales tax to <br />water resource development. People in the Legislature said, "Well, if <br />the Governor wants one percent, we will give him two, because we don't <br />think one percent is adequate." So the present bill, S.B. 325, was .intro- <br />duced by Senator Anderson and a number of others--you will notice that <br />that bill has 36 sponsors--the most sponsors I have seen on any bill so <br />far introduced this session. That is. over one-third of the Legislature <br />that is sponsoring this bill. It appears to have an excellent chance of <br />passage. <br /> <br />This bill would provide, we estimate, in the next fiscal year about $10 <br />million, and it would increase thereafter. <br /> <br />In addition, we would have the million and a half that we are getting <br /> <br />-3- <br />