Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />(2) Use of monies from an escrow account for projects <br />other than the projects in (1) above would be subject <br />to the following conditions: <br /> <br />(a) For projects that repair, rehabilitate, or <br />improve the efficiency of existing water supply <br />projects, facilities, or systems; or for new, or <br />for enlargements of existing, water supply <br />projects, facilities, or systems for which the <br />construction cost does not exceed $15 million (in <br />1989 dollars), the states could use these monies <br />without any congressional approval. Prior to the <br />start of construction, a state would provide the <br />Secretary of the Interior or his designee with a <br />feasibility study of the proposed project. The <br />Secretary would then have 90 days to report to the <br />escrow agent if the proposed project did not comply <br />with the provisions of this paragraph (a). Absent <br />such a report, expenditures of these monies could <br />commence on the 91st day. <br /> <br />(b) For new water supply projects with a <br />construction cost greater than $15 million (in 1989 <br />dollars) but less than $50 million (in 1989 <br />dollars), and with average annual net depletions to <br />the Colorado River System of less than 15.000 acre <br />feet per year. these monies could not be expended <br />for construction until 180 days after notice of <br />intent to proceed with the project had been given <br />to the Secretary of the Interior or his designee, <br />the House Committee on Interior and Insular <br />Affairs, and the Senate Committee on Energy and <br />Natural Resources and neither committee had <br />objected. Absent committee objections, <br />expenditures of these monies could commence on the <br />181st day. The Secretary would be required to <br />report to the committees within the first 90 days <br />of the 180 day period if a proposed project did not <br />comply with the provision of this paragraph (b). <br />If either committee objected, a project would have <br />to be specifically approved by Congressional <br />resolution. Notwithstanding the above, states <br />could use these monies without any congressional <br />approval for up to 70 percent of the cost of <br />feasibility studies, acquiring federal, state, and <br />local permits, and NEPA compliance for a project. <br /> <br />(c) For new water supply projects with a <br />construction cost greater than $50 million (in 1989 <br />dollars) or whose average annual net depletions to <br />the Colorado River system would exceed 15,000 AF <br />per year. each project would have to be <br /> <br />-6- <br />