Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- 15 - <br /> <br />3. It was never intended under the CRSP <br />Act that excess power revenues should be used for defray- <br />ing the costs of hydroelectric facilities at participating <br />projects. These costs plus interest were to be paid <br />through contract with power consumers. <br /> <br />4. The first call on excess power revenues <br />could cause delay in paying power allocation costs at the <br />three power generating storage units as well as decreasing <br />the amount of excess revenues to go in the Basin Fund in <br />future years. <br /> <br />5. A Federal guarantee by the U.S. Treasury <br />by transferring Utah debt obligations into Federal obliga- <br />tions is unwarranted. This eliminates any real up-front <br />cost sharing by State and local entities as was required <br />for Colorado's Animas-laPlata participating project. <br /> <br />6. New studies, new project additions, and new <br />projects authorized in H.R. 3408 should be subject to State <br />and local cOst sharing. <br /> <br />7 . <br /> <br />Conservation <br /> <br />representing <br />thorn in the <br /> <br />The Central Utah project Mitigation and <br />Commission created as a Federal Commission <br />one State, Utah, could prove to be a political <br />side of Colorado and other Upper Basin States. <br /> <br />8. If new and additions to fish and wildlife <br />projects, recreation facilities, wildlife enhancements, <br />stream improvements, etc., are to be authorized for funding <br />by H.R. 3408 in Utah, Colorado should be given equal treat- <br /> <br />2255 <br />