Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Agenda Item 11 <br />August 10. 1990 <br /> <br />Discussion <br /> <br />The titles of the bill pertaining to the CUP. although they <br />set major precendents for a Reclamation project. do not <br />directly affect Colorado. None of the proposals from 2-3 years <br />ago which the Board found objectionable have found their way <br />into the final bill. Thus, I do not believe that the Board has <br />any reason to object to the bill as reported out of committee. <br /> <br />However. the substitute bill as originally offered did <br />contain two provisions which were inimical to Colorado's <br />interests. although Congressman Campbell was successful in <br />getting them deleted from the bill during committee mark-up. <br />First. the bill would have deauthorized all CRSP participating <br />projects five years after the date of enactment of this bill <br />unless a cost-sharing agreement with non-federal entities for <br />construction of a project had been executed and the <br />Administration had requested construction funds for a project. <br />Second, the bill would have required that each CRSP <br />participating project have its own, separate authorized ceiling <br />rather than the aggregate ceiling for all projects which is now <br />found in the 1956 CRSP Act and in the 1968 CRBP Act for the <br />five Colorado projects authorized at that time (i,e., Animas-La <br />Plata, Dallas Creek, Dolores, San Miguel. and West Divide). <br /> <br />? <br /> <br />The second of these two items is best explained with <br />respect to the five Colorado projects authorized in 1968. The <br />1968 Act had a single, aggregate ceiling for all five <br />projects. When that ceiling is indexed to 1990. it covers the <br />costs of the Animas-La Plata, Dallas Creek, and Dolores <br />Projects, but only because the other two projects are not under <br />construction. <br /> <br />Were the 1968 estimated costs for any individual project to <br />be separately accounted for and indexed. then the ceiling for <br />such a project would be exceeded, For example. the estimated <br />cost of the Dolores Project in 1968 was $53,850.000. When <br />indexed to 1990. this figure becomes $151,526,000 according to <br />the Bureau of Reclamation. However. the current estimated cost <br />for completing the project is about $460.5 million. Thus, the <br />Dolores Project would have to be reauthorized by Congress if <br />its ceiling were to be computed in this manner. The same might <br />be true for the Animas-La Plata Project, although the federal <br />cost of that project has been reduced substantially by the <br />non-federal cost-sharing agreement, so there might not be a <br />problem in this regard. <br /> <br />-3- <br />