Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1624 <br /> <br />of this year, and using the 73 year period <br />repayment tables in the back as the basis, <br />employing 4-1/4% for Curecanti and inserting <br />that into the integrated table of repayment for <br />all of the proj ects, you will find two things <br />that are rather astounding. <br /> <br />First, the Curecanti Project revenues <br />cannot pay it's operation and maintenance and <br />replacement costs and it's interest cost at <br />4-1/4''70, let alone retiring any of' .the principal <br />costs over this 73 year period. Sounds strange <br />but it's true. Now the second thing that you <br />will find, if you make that study, is that using <br />4-1/4% interest for the Curecanti Project, in- <br />tegrating it in with the other projects, such <br />as Glen Canyon and Flaming Gorge, where the in- <br />terest rate is 2-7/8% and the Vernal Unit of the <br />Central Utah Project where the interest rate is <br />3-3/5%, you will find that over the 73 year re- <br />payment period that is shown in the back of <br />those two reports; that it will cost about <br />$63,000,000 in power revenues. By that I mean <br />that it takes $63,000,000 worth of power reve- <br />nues out of the Basin Fund in this 73 year period. <br />That's important to Colorado because 46% of <br />those power revenues in that Basin Fund are to <br />be assigned to Colorado for construction of <br />participating irrigation projects. By integrat- <br />ing the Curecanti Project at 4-1/4% interest into <br />this table, yes, you can pay it out. There isn't <br />any doubt about it, the study we made shows that, <br />but it's the effects on the study that are im- <br />portant, as you can see. <br /> <br />I think your resolution is very much in <br />order. This same resolution, as I understand it, <br />will be presented to the Commission at its next <br />meeting. Also we will present the facts and <br />figures that I have thrown out to you here this <br />morning for their consideration. There's one <br />little piece of advice that I'd like to throw <br />out to the' Board. You may' or may not be inter- <br />ested in following it. In a resolution of this <br />type I personally rather hate to see our members <br />of Congress and people who are working with this <br />problem tied down to any specific language. In <br />this particular case I have a good reason for <br />that feeling. While making the studies on S. <br />69 last January, that Senator Anderson intro- <br />duced, I found that there were other projects <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />