Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />sponsors. Bill was heard in Senate but never got out of ~ <br />sub-committee. Hearings were not held in the House. <br /> <br />C. In its legislative report on the bill, the Administration <br />took the position that the act should be amended to <br />provide that the 25% of project costs which are now <br />repayable without interest should either become repayable <br />with interest or be payable at the time of construction. <br /> <br />D. The Lower Basin states have taken the position that the 7 <br />states should support amending the act to finance 25% of <br />project costs with power revenues (see attached memo from <br />Myron Holburt dated January 28, 1983). <br /> <br />E. The other 3 Upper Basin states seem agreeable to this. <br /> <br />F. Colorado has indicated that it finds the proposal of the <br />Lower Basin states objectionable. Colorado has taken the <br />position that proposals to use power revenues to finance <br />new programs cannot be supported until the other states <br />are willing to discuss and support efforts to bring to <br />fruition the water resources development opportunities <br />contemplated for Colorado in the 1956 and 1968 Acts. <br /> <br />gl <br /> <br />Encls: as stated <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />-4- <br />