Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />(1) The increasing difficulty of obtaining <br /> <br /> <br />appropriations for construction funds from <br /> <br /> <br />Congress, and <br /> <br /> <br />(2) The rapidly escalating cost of the municipal <br /> <br /> <br />portion of Federal water projects, which costs are <br /> <br /> <br />putting those projects beyond the reach of local <br /> <br />municipalities. <br /> <br /> <br />He explained that the general intent of the proposed <br /> <br /> <br />amendments is to provide a means by which excess power <br /> <br /> <br />revenues would be returned directly to the~ates after the <br /> <br /> <br />costs of already constructed projects were paid off by basIn <br /> <br /> <br />fund revenues. He also emphasized that the proposed <br /> <br /> <br />amendments would result in additional costs to the Federal <br /> <br />Government. <br /> <br />Considerable discussion then ensued among members of the <br /> <br /> <br />Board concerning the desirability of the proposed amendments <br /> <br /> <br />and the practical political problems of getting any such <br /> <br /> <br />amendatory language enacted into law. Mr. Sparks noted that <br /> <br /> <br />it would, of course, be very difficult to obtain <br /> <br /> <br />~ngressional approval in all likelihood. However, he noted <br /> <br /> <br />that the alternative of doing nothing had to be equally <br /> <br /> <br />unacceptable to Colorado. After some additional discussion, <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. MacFarlane moved, seconded by Mr. McDonald)that the Board <br /> <br /> <br />approve in concept the proposed amendments to the Colorado <br /> <br /> <br />River Storage Project Act as set forth in the document <br /> <br /> <br />attached as Appendix Q. There being no further discussion, <br /> <br /> <br />the motion passed on ~ unanimous voice vote. <br /> <br />it <br />