Laserfiche WebLink
<br />cost and benefits. This, apparently, means that the principles and <br />standards which were adopted after lengthy hearings just a few years <br />ago under the Nixon Administration would again be revised. An implied <br />but not stated purpose is to make water resource projects more expensive, <br />more difficult, and more time-consuming. The procedure is broken into <br />several major categories. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />The first category -- and perhaps one of the most controversial is <br />cost-sharing by states. It is proposed for projects authorized in the <br />future -- it is important to note "in the future." I know that this is <br />one thing that Governor Lamm and our congressional delegation bore down <br />on hard. They pointed out that it is unfair to try to change past <br />history. <br /> <br />So the President gave in on that pointbut'on~y _to a'limited-degree, as <br />I will point out. ' The new policy that the President has announced <br />would require that the states must contribute in cash -- and I <br />emphasize "in cash," because they said, "We won't accept land or <br />services or anything else; it has to be cash." -- 10 percent in cash <br />of the construction costs associated with the vendible output of that <br />project. Translated, it simply means that if you have a project which <br />produces income from the sale of water, whether it's agricultural or <br />municipal, or generates power, that is a vendible output of that <br />project. The cost of that, 10 percent of it, must be put up in cash <br />by the state. <br /> <br />The non-vendible output would be flood control, recreation, and fish <br />and wildlife enhancement. The state must put up 5 percent of those <br />costs. The state's contribution is to be paid concurrently and <br />proportionately with the federal cash outlay. In short, if Congress <br />appropriates 10 million dollars for a particular project in a given <br />year, the state would have to put up its proportionate share based <br />upon the 10 percent and 5 percent formula in that particular year. <br /> <br />The states would be allowed to share in revenues from the vendible <br />output of the projects. In other words, whatever revenues were derived <br />back from the projects, the state would recover its 10 percent. It <br />would not recover any of the 5 percent of the non-vendible output. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />There is a limitation, an annual project by project limitation -- and <br />we are not sure what that'means -- on the state's contribution of one- <br />fourth of one percent of the state's general revenue. At the present <br />time, we compute this to be about 3 million dollars annually that,~the <br />state of Colorado would have to come up with under this formula. We <br />are not sure what that means project by project. Our interpretation <br />of it is that, it would be 3 million dollars ~or each project. So if <br />we have 10 projects, that would be 30 million dollars for a maximum <br /> <br />-13- <br />