Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- 14 - <br /> <br />SUM MAR Y <br /> <br />This Bill, H.R. 3408, should not be approved by the U.S. <br />Congress unless amended to provide the same treatment in all <br />respects to Colorado and the other two Upper Basin States, <br />Wyoming and New Mexico, if they also so desire. Equity should <br />include the same rights to use of apportionments of revenues <br />of the Basin Fund on all matters relating to fish and wildlife <br />mitigation and enhancement projects, recreation projects, <br />construction of projects, making of water and related land <br />resource studies, etc. More specifically, H.R. 340B in its <br />present form should not be enacted because: <br /> <br />I. The Bill surreptitiously circumvents the <br />apportionments of power revenues among four States in the <br />Upper Colorado fliver Basin Fund and changes the purposes <br />for which these revenues were authorized to be used. By <br />circumventing the apportionments of power revenues the appor- <br />tionments of water use in the Upper Basin Compact can also <br />be indirectly destroyed because Colorado would not be able <br />to develop future water projects to use its share of Colo- <br />rado River system water. <br /> <br />2. Crediting power revenues to the Basin Fund <br />for operating needs and then diverting them for construc- <br />tion of a limited number of previously authorized units and <br />projects and projects named in H.R. 340H is misleading and <br />patently dishonest. Operation costs under the CRSP Act dO <br />not include costs of construction ot proJects. Operation <br />costs of the CRSP have the first call on Basin Fund revenues. <br />By the very nature of bond financing the uses of these rev- <br />enues for defraying H.R. 3408 costs would put those costs <br />aheaa of ~ purposes for WhlCh revenues are authorized <br />to be used in the CflSP Act. <br /> <br />2256 <br /> <br />I <br />