WSPC01926 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~~'~~/~OOq .~~:~L ( ~~ql::,.:n::J:::)Lq ..,x INDIAN Al't',U1lli r-~ a.::U.1.1 'I&IUU;) ~u~,~~,.uu~ ~O.~U rAA ~U~ ~~. G4~V 001121 ! . '. 5. Over $ao,OOO,OOO In planning costs have been shaved off because the BOR has determined tlley were Incurred for the agricultural portion .of the project that was supposedly eliminated by the so-called 1999 compromise. These are 8liJI part of the project's cost to the public and should be 'shoWn ll$ such. Moreover, B8 we will discuss later, the agrlcultural pOrtion of this project Is sti" very much alive /r1 the minds of the major backers of the project. 6.The ute lribes reCeIved $60,000,000 in AlP setllement mooey back in 1987. This money also should be added In 8S a public cost. Indeed, the utes were awarded another $4ll,ooo,OOO In the 1999 amendments. This money should also be shown as a public coet even though the BOR Is asking the BIA to budget for that money so that ~ does not undercut the money they'have to spend on construcllon and does not show up as a project cost. 7. . The BOR's '1999 cost estimates failed to account fur the power Jines and other Infrastructure . required to bring federally subsidized pOWBr to lI1e project pumping plant at Durango. The BOR Is presen1ly asking WAPA to request $10,000,000 in lis budget to fund this portlon of the project. Once again this is eproject cost and should be added In even j(ltcames disguised inWAPA's budget. . . '.," '" . , I I " " . B.. In 1996, we esked the Department of Interior to calculate the value of lost hydropOWer anel lnaeased salinity fiom proJecl water diven;ions. Their estimate was Il public cost of $18,000,000 annually. Clearly, over the 10o-year life of the project those public costs will reach Into the billions of dollars. Moreover. the huge power requirements far project pumping will be robbed from present CRSP users. It is not unlikely, therefore. that anoth.... coal-fired power plant wlIJ be required In the 4-<:Omers area to replace the power needed fur project pumping and thet losl because of project dlver.siDns. These costs, IDa. have not been estimated or acknowledged for whet they are, project Induced costs 10 the public. i " There are many other costs which remain hidden or half burletf, but even the foregoing give ample proof that lhls project Is a bank buster. So, when we add into this putrid mix the lact that lI\llre are no known uses for mosl project weter. the burdensome imbecll1ty of this project becomes even more pronounoed. tn fact. we have been In court for alroost two years tryfng to iirid out the Intended uses of project W2lef, 1br "beneficial use' Is a requirement b&fore a water right can be granted under Colorado law. Project proponents have refused to prDvlde any InfonnaUon on use. As a result, the American taxpayer Is advancing buck loads 01 scarce public dollars for a project that doesn' even have a seaJred water rfght with which to fill the reservoir. On top 01 that, the BOR II.l5hed in10 Ihe few repayment contracts It has for small amounts of project water knowing thai the cosl estimates they were baslng these contracts On were wrong. They even l.hreatened project backers that If they dldn' sign up for water Immediately they would have to pay more when the real coats became lQ'Iown. These contractors are now refusing to pay more no matter what lI1e final costs of the projeel may be. This. threat defies federal reclamation . law reQulrfng full repayment of the costs of M&I water, plus InteresL It also helpS explain why BpR Is attempting to have other egencles such as WAPA. fund scm& of the constructJon outlays. i We mentioned earlier thllt the agl1culturBl portlon at the proJect Is still alive and well. We ~now this from recent court briefs in whJch one of the project's Chief backers. the Southwest Water Conservation DiS1rlct. Is lighting OLB' efforts 10 have them abandon the agricultural water rights for 1I\e Anbnas-t.a PIala Project. Despite the 1999 legislation which supposedlY e1lmineted agrlcultUral water from the project, thay've deCIllre<l they Inlend to use this water for ilTigation. ~erhaps that explllins Why project pumps were grea!ly increased In siZe In !he flllal design. Now multiple filling of the project reservoir cen be easiy eccompllshed so that project backers cen ~eve their ceke and eat" loa. It Is Candide! .