Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. I'." \_j.< '~" """. _ <br /> <br />Jlo.t5 : 9 <br /> <br />language used in legislation authorizing the New York Power <br />Authority to issue more th~n $1 billion in bonds. Any controls <br />written into the CAP bill along the lines suggested by its critics <br />could result in "complete destruction of the bonding machinery" <br />he said. To call such wording a "blank check" was absurd <br />contended Mr. Curley. Moreover, constitutional questions would <br />be raised if the law were written in such a way that the leo-is- <br />lature sat as judge over the actions of an executive branch~ in <br />this case the Power Authority. If the legislature had to approve <br />each bond issue of the Power A uthority, "you'll never sell one <br />of these bonds-not one," said Mr. Curley. He explained ,that <br />investors needed assurance that the project would be com- <br />pleted and would fear that a future legislature might halt work <br />on it by refusing to approve a bond issue. "Revenue from the <br />, project is an investor's only security," said Mr. Curley. <br /> <br />. Objections to the bill as it stood were forthcoming likewise <br />from Yuma county irrigation interests. It would be' acceptable <br />to them, they' said, only if it were amended to recognize existing <br />Yuma water rights and to provide for recognition of Yuma <br />rights in all future contracts entered into by the Power Author- <br />ity and the Stream Commission, . <br /> <br />Still another objection came from the city of Phoenix. <br />Assistant City Mnn~ger Charles A. Esser .said he was afraid <br />urban dwellers would be penalized seriously if cities had to pay <br />$55 per acre-foot for CAP water while, farmers paid $10. <br />"Urb~n residents are going to pay for. this and their welfare <br />should be carefully considered," said Mr. Esser. "It's not going <br />to be the farmers." By way of reply, W. T. Willey, counsel for <br />the Power Authority, said the cities were protected inasmuch <br />as they had bargaining power on water rates. If they refused <br />to pay the rates, he said, there simply would be no project. <br /> <br />The Stream Commission's executive director, Rich Johnson, <br />reported to the legislature, that the Commission had retained <br />. the Ralph' M. Parsons Co. to make an economic study' of rion- <br />federal financing, of an aqueduct system from the. Colorado <br />River to central Arizona, disassociated from the potential for <br />revenues from hydroelectric power sales. <br /> <br />"The cost of project water to farmers at the aqueduct," <br />Mr. Johnson said, "will be $10 per acre-foot, which means a <br />eost of something like $15 to $18 per acre-foot at the farm head <br />gate. That is expensive water and can be used only as a supple- <br />mental source of supply. <br /> <br />"For cities," he continued, "an anticipated cost of $50 or <br />even $55 is less expensive for th~:t use than is the cost farmers <br />will pay. The cost of rHW water is a small part of the total cost <br />of municip~1 water. Most of the cost urban users of water pay <br />is accounted for bv the treatment and delivery systems." <br /> <br />Bill Approved by Committee <br /> <br />On Februarv 25 the Senate Natural Resources Committee <br />put the CAP bill out with II "do pass" recommendation. Only <br /> <br />'---48- <br />