WSP02511 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

[ \ I . '" .1 on~;5jS The $6-to-$24-million spread in the projected tax subsidy derived from the factor of the pump-back projects. If such projects were included in a no-dam bare-bones CAP, the tax subsidy could be held to about $6 million, it was estimated. If they were excluded, it would run to about $24 million. Nor did the bare-bones project contemplate any federal subsidies or multiple use benefits, such as power production, flood control, recreation and fish and wildlife conservation. Explained State Water Engineer W. S. Gookin: "While it was recognized that such multiple purposes might be desirable. adjuncts to the projects, it was concluded they should be considered item by item and included only if the beneficiaries of such functions could be identified and induced to pay the costs." Douglas J.Wall, chairman of the Arizona Interstate Stream Commission, said the commission could not ignore advice of Arizona's congressional delegation that the upcoming Congress might be "persuaded to act favorably" on CAP. But then, he continued, neither could it overlook the possibility that Congress would again reject CAP. In that case, hI' said, the state must go ahead with its own financing. He recommended therefore that "any legislative action be taken in 1967 which may be required to implement a state plan at such time as a decision may be mllde that this is the only Hvenue open to us: . . Arizona must have water, not just a dry legal 'right to it." Could Arizona get a license from the Federal Power Com- mission to build one or another or both dams? John R Smith, chairman of the Power Authority, thought it might be somewhat diffiCult but it could be done. And John T. Monzani of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., speaking on behalf of the investment firms, said, "We're ready to move as soon as the state tells us to get started." Another financial representative, Arthur Guastello, vice president of Wainwright & Ramsey, New York, consultants , on municipal finance, told the symposium that any of the four go-it~alone approaches to CAP would generate revenues s'uffi- cient to provide for operating expenses, necessary reserves and payment of principal and interest on all bonds. Moreover,. he said, it could be done without subsidy and without resorting to any additional charges. A Hard Look at the Realities Still and all, it was a formidable undertaking. Don G. Campbell, the Arizona Republic's business and financial editor, showed just how formidable it was by pointing out that even the cheapest of the three bonding plans, proposing only the construction of a low dam at Marble Canyon, involved an indebt- edness exceeding all long-term debt outstanding against all state and local governmental bodies in Arizona at the end of 1963. He went on: "Any discussion of a state-financed CAP, how- ever, passes quickly from the engineering aspects of what is planned and centers, critically, on a much more basic issue: whether it is feasible to assume that Arizona can float a bond -35-