BOARD02386 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In addition, the government fully taxes the income that is generated by water resource projects. For instance, in 1970 the gross revenue generated by reclamation projects from the sale of power and crops exceeded two billion dollars, all fully taxable. This does not include the value of fifty-four million, plus, of the visitor-day uses of the recreational facilities of reclamation projects, not to men- tion prevention of flood control damages to the extent of about sixty-eight million dollars, nor the value of 636 billion gallons of water deliv- ered to municipalities from reclamation projects. None of those things were considered by these economists. Apparently, some two billion dol- lars of gross products has no effect in their opinion upon government tax revenues. The total federal investment to date in reclamation is about five and one-half billion dollars. With- in a period of less than three years, the gross product from reclamation projects exceeds the investment that has been made since 1902. The tax revenues alone have exceeded the investment made since 1902. I am not even including the Corps projects which adds another good many billions of dollars annually to the tax revenues. Here in Colorado in 1965, the flood control dam- ages in this state considerably exceeded five hundred million dollars. All of that was a tax deduction which the economists do not compute either. By these flood control projects, the government saves a tremendous amount of tax rev- enues. Casualty losses are fully deductible under the income tax laws. The Chatfield proj- ect will cost only a fraction of what the total losses were in one year here in Colorado. Ac- tually, we have substantial losses every year from erosion and minor floods on the South Platte River. A couple of years ago, over twenty million dollars in damages occurred on the South Platte and we didn't even think of it as a flood year. This is one of the most poorly reasoned -58- I I