Laserfiche WebLink
<br />431 <br /> <br />The second group ?f participating projects, when selected <br />and. approved, will require greater subsidization than those al- <br />ready approved by the Board; that is true so far as Colorado <br />projects are concerned. Of the eighteen units. in the Cliffs- <br />Divide Report, only six would bear a repayment charge of ten per- <br />cent of the constructipn cost. One wpuld payout 100 percent, , <br />one - sixteen percent, one - thirteen, one - twelve, and two - <br />eleven percent~ Others would require from ninety, to one hundred <br />percent subsidization of construction cost. In other words, the <br />~ <br />farmer would be able to pay f):"om nothing to ten percent of the <br />cost of construction in the case of those project&. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Eleven of these units would each cost ~round $5,000,000 <br />or less. At first glance, it would appear that here is the place <br />to secure projects to construct under the small projects ,bill <br />introduced into the 83rd Congress by Mr. Miller of Nebraska. <br />Unfortunately that bill as now written requires a repayment in <br />fifty years by the farmer of a loan covering the cost of con- <br />struction minus such amounts as w::>uld be non-reimbursable if the <br />Project were to be federally constructed. The non-reimbursable <br />items would cover the costs allocated to flood control, recrea- <br />tion, etc. Only one of these projects, the Woody Creek unit, <br />could meet this test. <br /> <br />Further study may disclose one or more units or combination <br />of units which will more closely approach the standards set by <br />the initial participating projects. <br /> <br />Table I gives the data referred to in the above discussion. <br /> <br />I <br />