Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Members, CWCB <br />January 12, 1981 <br />Page Three <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />B. Given the relatively small amounts of money, (compared <br />to the cost, for example, of authorized federal projects) <br />which are likely to be available to the construction <br />fund, is it possible to have any significant impact on <br />the development of our compact entitlements? <br /> <br />1) How can construction fund monies be leveraged? <br />What kinds of projects (energy, ag, or municipal) <br />are most promising for Board participation? <br /> <br />2) In light of the fact that most new irrigation <br />projects will be economically unjustified and <br />none will have the ability to repay more than a <br />fraction of their construction cost, how do we <br />approach such projects? Are we constrained, as a <br />practical matter, to continue the historic state <br />policy of relying exclusively on the federal <br />government for such projects? <br /> <br />C. To what extent should Colorado River salinity issues <br />be taken into account in determining which projects <br />the Board recommends for funding? <br /> <br />D. Does the need to thoroughly review the administration <br />of the construction fund program and respond to the <br />above questions imply that we should cease processing <br />feasibility studies until we have set forth the ob- <br />jectives to be used in selecting projects? Does it <br />further imply the need for a process which explicitly <br />identifies and seeks out appropriate projects, as <br />opposed to the present process? <br /> <br />JWMc/sd <br /> <br />I <br />