Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />ReoreJIues for this alternative are based primarily on the <br />opportunity costs of the public's resources that ..ould othenrise <br />be allocated to collStructlnC and malntalnlnc ALP. <br />a. Please state the amaual amount of revenues for this alteJJlative which <br />would be available to the Project beneficiaries and state who would pay these reveDues and <br />how much would be paid by the federal gove111lDent or any other entities that would pay <br />revenues. <br />b. Is the Minority Alternative based ill part on revenues from payments by <br />lower basin users for benefits resulting from each principal's undiverted water supply? <br />c. If so, how much do you assume lower basiD users would pay for such <br />benefits and, specifically, who would make those payments? . . . <br />d. If the Minority Alternative is based in part on payments by lower basin <br />users for benefits resulting from each principal's UDdivened water supply, do the private <br />citizens agree that the lower basin users would bave to be assured of receiviug the water <br />wbich provides such benefits? <br />e. What legal mechanisms do the private citizens envision to ensure that <br />lower basin users receive the benefits of the principal's undiverted water supply? <br />39.. On page 3 of the MiDority Alternative, under the heading "Hydropower," is the <br />statement that: <br />The ALP as envisioned Involves the depletion or about 155,000 <br />aae-feet (a-O of water from the Animas River . . .. However, <br />given the institutional and political burdles associated with <br />interbasin transfers, we have stopped sbort of fixing a monetary <br />value which lower basin users might be wlmlll: to pay for this <br />water. <br />a. Do the Private Citizens agree that the Proponents' current proposal is <br />limited to depletions of only 57,100 AF? <br />b. Does the Minority Alternative assume that any monetary value or <br />payment will be made to the beneficiaries of ALP by lower basin users if the beneficiaries do <br />not divert their allocations under the Project? <br />c. If so, how much and which lower basin users will make such payments? <br />40. On page 4 of the MiDority Alternative is the state that: <br />ALP as currently envisioned will reduce power production <br />revenue by about 59.s million annually, \ISing a value or 46 mills <br />per kwh for the 155,000 a.f of water diverted through the project, <br />as CAlculated by the Burau of Reclamation In its recent <br />eorrespondence with us. <br />a. Does the Minority Alternative assume that power users will be willing to <br />pay $9.5 million (or some other amount) if the Project beneficiaries do not divert water to <br />which they are entitled from the Project? <br />b. If the power users are not willing to pay any amoUDt if the Project <br />beneficiaries do not divert water to which they are entitled from the Project, does the <br />Minority Alternative assume that someone elsc would pay the Project beneficiaries? Who? <br />How much? <br />c. If the Project beneficiaries do not diven the water to which they are <br />entitled. from the Project, what is to prevent some other appropriator in Colorado, or <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />v'/G,'d 8S0V 998 ~0~ , <br /> <br />S3J~nOS3~ l~~nl~N ~O ld3G <br /> <br />vS:91 ~661-~1-1JO <br />