My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC01926
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
14000-14999
>
WSPC01926
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 11:15:17 AM
Creation date
10/9/2006 3:05:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.106.O
Description
Colorado River Water Projects - Animas La Plata - Project Funding
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
3/24/2004
Author
Various
Title
Animas La Plata Project Funding - Testimony - US Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development - ALP Project - 03-24-04
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
102
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 />v~/,~/,vv~ ~o.uo rhA LUL ~~~ ~~L~ <br /> <br />lNJJ1AN A~'~'A1J{S <br /> <br />141 005 <br /> <br />001138 <br /> <br />. 6. Over $60,000,000 in planning costs have been shaved off because the BaR has determined <br />they were incurred for the agricultural portion of the project that was supposedly eliminated by <br />the so-called 1999 compromise. These are still part of the projecrs cost to the public and should <br />be shown as such. Moreover, as we will discuss later. the agricultural portion of this project is stiil <br />very much alive i" the mi"ds of the major backers of the project. <br /> <br />6. The Ute tribes received $60,000,000 in ALP settlement money back in 1987. This money also <br />should be added In as a pUblic cost. Indeed, the Utes were awarded another $40,000,000 in the <br />1999 amendments. This money should also be shown as a public cost even though the BaR is <br />asking the BIA to budget for that money so that tt does not undercut the money they have to <br />spend on construction and does not show up as a project cost. <br /> <br />7. The BaR's 1999 cost estimates failed to account for the power lines and other infrastructure <br />required to bring federally subsidized power to the project pumping plant at Durango. The BaR is <br />presently asking WAPA to request $10,000,000 in its budget to fund this portion of the project. <br />Once again this is a project cost and should be added in even if it comes disguised in WI'PA's <br />budget. . <br /> <br />8. In 1996, we asked the Department of Interior to calculate the value of lost hydropower and <br />increased salinity from project water diversions. Their estimate was a public cost <br />of $18,000,000 annually. Clearly, over the 100-year life of the project those public costs will <br />reach into the billions of dollars. Moreover, the huge power requirements for project pumping will <br />be robbed from present CRSP users. It is not unlikelY, therefore, that another coal-fired power <br />plant will be required In the 4-corners area to replace the power needed for project pumping and <br />that iost because of project diversions. These costs, too, have not been estimated or <br />acknowledged for what they are, project induced costs to the public. <br /> <br />There are many other costs which remain hidden or half buried, but even the foregoing give <br />ample proof that this project is a bank buster. So, when we add into this putrid mix the fact that <br />there are no known uses for most project water, the burdensome imbecility of this project <br />becomes even more pronounced. In fael, we have been in court for almost two years trying to <br />find out the intended uses of project water, for "beneficial use" is a requirement before a water <br />right can be granted under Colorado law. Project proponents have refused to provide any <br />information on use. As a result, the American taxpayer is advancing truck loads of scarce public <br />dollars for a project that doesn't even have a secured water right With which to fill the reservoir. <br /> <br />On top of that, the BaR rushed into the few repayment contracts it has for small amounts of <br />project water knowing that the cost estimates they were basing these contracts on were wrong. <br />They even threatened project backers that if they didn't sign up for water Immediately they would <br />have to pay more when the real costs became known. These contractors are now refusing 10 pay <br />more no matter what the final costs of the project may be. This threat defies federal reclamation <br />law requiring full repayment of the costs of M&I water, plus interest. It also helps explain why <br />BOR is attempting to have other agencies such as WAPA fund some of the construction outlays. <br /> <br />We mentioned earlier that the agricultural portion of the project is still alive and well. We know <br />this from recent court briefs in which one of the projecfs chief backers, the Southwest Water <br />Conservation District, is fighting our efforts to have them abandon the agricultural water rights for <br />the Animas-La Plala Project. Despite the 1999 legislation which supposedly eliminated <br />agriculturai water from the project, they've declared they intend to use this water for irrigation. <br />Perhaps that explains why project pumps were greatly increased in size in the final design. Now <br />multiple filling of the project reservoir can be easily accomplished so that project backers can <br />have their cake and eat it too. It is Candide! <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.