Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- 5 - <br /> <br />1. Such a scheme completely abrogates <br />present law as well as the agreement concerning the <br />apportionments of revenues of the CRSP Act to which <br />Utah was a party. It freezes all of the Basi~ ,Fund <br />revenues in favor of Utah and to the deteriment of <br />Colorado's 46% thereof. If Utah wants to confine her <br />use of 21.5% of the Basin Fund revenues to the purposes <br />of H.R. 3408, that is a ,different matter. <br /> <br />2. The Central Utah Water Conservancy District <br />would be able to issue bonds and to pay the principal and <br />interest and finance charges on these bonds by using rev- <br />enues from the Upper Basin Fund. These revenues, therefore, <br />would be expended solely for the construction of $300-400 <br />million worth of irrigation, drainage, hydroelectric, and <br />associated features of the Bonneville unit of the Central <br />Utah Project (CUP) and $500-600 millions worth of joint <br />costs already sunk in the construction of irrigation features <br />of the Bonneville Unit. <br /> <br />3. The power revenues to be used for the benefit <br />of Utah would be credited to the Basin Fund under the guise <br />of being for operating needs. This is a dishonest misrepre- <br />sentation of operation, and a radical departure from the <br />authorized use of revenues in the CRSP Act, and would put Utah' <br />in a position uniquely unfair to Colorado because Colorado <br />would be unable to use her 46% of excess revenues for the <br />legally intended purposes. <br /> <br />4. The use of excess Basin Fund revenues under <br />the CRSP Act was never intended to pay the costs of construc- <br />tion of hydroelectric features of any participating project. <br />Hydroelectric costs have to be paid in full plus interest by <br />the,project beneficiaries. <br /> <br />2265 <br />