Laserfiche WebLink
<br />would limit liability for the Uncompahgre Valley wat6r Users <br />Association, whose elected board has reviewed and approved the <br />involved contracts. <br /> <br />53. MR. RICK PROCTOR: One thing that we can benefit from is <br />helping agriculture in the area. The AB Lateral would decrease <br />farmers' expenses, and this is important to the local economy. <br />Power from project is needed; we need to manage and conserve our <br />water. <br /> <br />RESPONSE: Revenues from the facility would be shared by the <br />Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association. Revenues could be <br />used for debt retirement, rehabilitation, or to reduce increases <br />in water rates. <br /> <br />54. MR. STEVE B~: Obviously, the 1:1 benefit-cost ratio <br />does not represent a break even; it represents the cost plus an <br />acceptable rate of return on the investment. This is not pointed <br />out in the OEIS. Smaller scale alternatives have been eliminated <br />without letting the public know what costs and profits are. If <br />they are not going to come clean on what kind of profit they <br />want, they are going to knock out the small scale opportunities <br />and provide opportunities for criticisms. The public also has <br />the right to know about cost overruns, liability, and where <br />profits go. The Bureau says it has a new mission--resource <br />management--this project is not compatible with it. I suggest a <br />new draft EIS that perhaps everyone can live with, and that is <br />what a lot of people have been talking about here. <br /> <br />RESPONSE: The financial feasibility ratio in the EIS did include <br />an acceptable rate of return on invested equity. This has been <br />clarified in chapter 2 of the FEIS, and additional information on <br />costs and other issues are also presented. <br /> <br />P-38 <br />