Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />mother upper basin state, from diverting unappropriated water to which the upper basin is <br />entitled under the Colorado River Compact? <br />d. Isn.t that the conceptual underpinning of the Colorado River Storage <br />Act and the Colorado River Compact? <br />41. On page 4 of the Minority Alternative is the statement that: <br />Because water that will be depleted If the project Is constructed Is <br />currently generating hydropower revenues, It Is not unreasonable <br />to assume that power users might be willing to pay sollie lUDount <br />to retain access to these reso~ and the revenues they <br />generate. <br />a. Do the private citizens assume that power users in fact would be willing <br />to pay some amount to retain access to these resources and the revenues they generate? <br />b. How muCh? <br />c. Which power users would make such payments? <br />42. On page 4 of the Minority Alternative is the statement that: <br />Usln& this value [$57 per ton annually], the annual salinity costs <br />of the project c:an be said to be $9.% million. Since salinity <br />control has historically been a federal responsibility, this portion <br />of the revenue stream would, In all likelihood, be a federal <br />contribution. <br />a. What basis do the private citizens have to believe that the federal <br />government would be willing to contribute money to the Project beneficiaries for not <br />diverting water to which they are entitled when other upper basin states, including Colorado, <br />are legally entitled to c:ontinue to develop the consumptive use of water available for use by <br />the upper basin UDder the Colorado River Compact? <br />43. 011 page 5 of the Minority Alternative is the statement that: <br />For the purposes of this proposal, we assume that balf of the <br />Bureau's ESA costs would not be Incurnd. The Bureau's 1995 <br />"Economic and Financial Analysis Update" identified a total or <br />about $30 million in costs mated to fish and wildlife mitigation. <br />a. Are the private citizens suggesting that the federal government would <br />contribute $15 million if the Project beneficiaries do not divert water to which they are <br />entitled under the Project or merely the iDterest on $15 million until such time as the federal <br />government is required to spend the SlS million? <br />b. What happens if the Project beneficiaries elect to begin diverting water? <br />44. On pace 5 of the Minority Alternative is the statement that: <br />Revenues would be distributed to the project beneficiaries based <br />on the percelltage or _ter they would have received rrom the <br />project. <br />a. How much do the private citizens estimate the revenues would be to be <br /> <br />distributed? <br /> <br />b. Who would provide each source of revenue? How much? Under what <br /> <br />conditions? <br /> <br />c. Are the revenues guaranteed in perpetuity? <br />45. 011 page 6 of the Minority Alternative is the statement that: <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />p,/~,'d 8S0P 998 ~0~ , <br /> <br />53J~n053~ l~~nl~N ~o ld30 <br /> <br />SS:9, ~66,-~,-lJO <br />