Laserfiche WebLink
<br />from the Mineral 'Leasing Fund. So we would have a fund in the next <br />fiscal year running between ll~ and $12 million and increasing there- <br />after. This then would permit 'us to'go'back to congress and say, "Okay, <br />the state of ColoradO will put up -its portion of the costs of these <br />federal reclamation projects." <br /> <br />Those costs for the federal reclamation projects, as we understand it, I <br />do not have. to be put up in one lump sum. For instance, let's say we <br />now compute that the State's portion of the Narrows would be at least <br />$16 million. That cost would be spread over the construction period. <br />In other words, we would match proportionately the federal appropria- <br />tion on an annual basis. so we would have, say, 10 years to provide <br />the State's portion of the cost. It usually takes anywhere from 8 to <br />10 years to construct any of these major projects. This'we could do <br />easily with. the-type of fund which would be created by Senate Bill 325. <br />We could also clear up our backlog of authorized projects here within <br />the state and initiate new projects within the next 2 'fiscal years. <br />This would really put the State in business in the water resource field <br />in a very substantial way,'and I. think we would have one of the best <br />programs in the United States, because of the continuing nature of the <br />fund. <br /> <br />There are other bills which have been introduced which would also provide <br />other funding to the Construction Fund, the Mineral Severance Tax--there <br />is a hearing on that tomorrow morning. I am beginning to think we may~ <br />have an overkill on this problem, and I don't know exactly what to say <br />to the committee tomorrow morning. And there are two or three other <br />bills which would. provide some funding from other sources. <br /> <br />All things considered, I think by far the best bill introduced to date <br />is Senate Bill 325. That is the one we should support. The Board <br />'previously directed me to. start forming a committee to work on this bill, <br />and I have .done some workcon. it.: I'couldn't do m\tch until~I knew-how the <br />leadership, the GOvernor and the leadership in the Legislature, felt <br />about this item. This bill just came out~ It'was just printed last <br />Thursday. We have started some tentative work about setting up a com- <br />mittee. I nave written to'all project sponsors throughout the state, <br />sending them a copy of the bill and asking them for their support. <br /> <br />That is about where we are at this time, Mr. Chairman. <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: Felix, what is the opposition, if any? <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: The opposition will be based upon the desire to reduce <br />state spending.' No matter how you slice this, any money that we put I <br />in the Construction Fund eventually 'is at the expense of the general <br />fund. Even though this' appropriation is not from the general fund, the <br />sales tax today; 15 percent of it, goes. directly into the general fund. <br />This would reduce, therefore, the money going into the general ~und by <br />roughly $10 million. So the Joint Budget Committee has a very, very <br />difficult task in trying to allocate funds. <br /> <br />Considering the 7 percent limitation, however, the State will end up with <br />a substantial surplus. So, in effect, what the appropriation to the, <br /> <br />-4- <br />