My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD02593
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
FLOOD02593
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 6:24:53 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 11:00:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Statewide
Community
State of Colorado
Basin
Statewide
Title
Water Project Development Financing Needs
Date
10/16/1986
Floodplain - Doc Type
Educational/Technical/Reference Information
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
311
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />. ",,.. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />: <br />h <br /> <br />In light of that, we have argued that if Congress will not appropriate money, <br />then what should be done is to turn the basin fund system from a repayment device <br />into a front-end financing devi( ,. The only way you can do that is to raise the <br />current rate which, to use round numbers, is 10 mills per kilowatt hour. You can't <br />tinker much with that 10 mills; it has to be devoted to the repayment of projects <br />which have already been constructed. <br /> <br />We propose making the increment of additional revenues from increased power <br />rates payable directly to the four Upper Basin states with no further congressional <br />involvement, such monies to be used exclusively for the financing of water projects <br />selected by a state. That is not an entirely new idea. The three lower Colorado <br />River Basin states - Arizona, Nevada, and California - have just gotten through the <br />House a bill concerning the disposition of the power from Hoover and Parker-Da vis <br />Dams from which we have borrowed' several ideas. <br /> <br />The Lower Basin bi:... prompted a floor fight in the House of Representatives <br />over an amendment to m2.ke federal hydropower from the Hoover system available to <br />the highest bidder. This is an anathema to the preference customers in the Pick- <br />Sfoan system as well as the CRSP system. <br /> <br />Colorado testified on the Lower Basin bill. We supported it on the grounds that <br />it set precedents for what we seek to achieve in the Upper Basin. However, we <br />have not addressed ourselves to the Pick-Sloan system, but the problems are <br />essentially the same as tr.ose' we face in the CRSP system -- that is, there are <br />authorized projects I f., -: Congress has a commitment to that are not being built <br />because Congress will not appropriate the funds. Missouri Basin states are therefore <br />not getting the intended benefits of that power revenue system. <br /> <br />In summary, state water project financing in Colorado consists of only one <br />program at the state level and that is the Colorado Water Conservation Board's long- <br />term, low interest loan program. I suspect many of you will speak to basically the <br />same kind of program. The issue has always been where do those tax monies come <br />from, and I likewise expect that several of you will make that observation as well. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.