WSP04894 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'." ". ...... ";,., ..': "... .- ,. " , .<:' '~}' ^. . ~ (."~. C-', (0 ,', .,'.,0. I 113th Year" "" * ''::''('.1.',1... Pueblo, Colorado, Tuesday, May 22. 1984 ,25 Cel Conservation group's Pan-Ark charges dismissed From starr, ,,'lee reports shifted from DOD.reimbursable to be recovered from purchasers of the U,S. Treasury. A National wLldlile Federation reimbursable accounts in the the project's wat~r and power. with a barb@d.wire fence from "To date, not one additional report contending that an addi. Fry-Ark's books, the error _ Costs attributable to irrigation CF&I. They (environmentalists) dollar has been .recovered from tional $60 million in costs should when interest is taken into ac. are supposed to be recovered wanted the rustic fence.'..'- - .po.wer users based upon even this :Je recovered fOT tht Fryingpan. count - will cost taxpayers $218 from users without interest. Costs The Fry.Ark project, begun in mmor reanocation, and increased .\rkanS3s water project is a million over the next 50 years. of power production are to be 1964, is 96 percent complete. It payments from water users have rehash of "unfounded"3.year.old The federalioD report said the recovered with interest, and th~ will be completed in 1987 at an not reached the gene.ral :harges, a local water official added $60 mUlloD should be paid costs of recreation facilities may estimated cost of 5530 mUlion. Treasury," the Wildlife Federa. ;aid Monday. by water and power users who not be recovered. The Wildlife Federation sllid tion said. A federation appraisal of benefit from the project. Charles "Tommy" Thomson. that In January 19i9, Inspe,=tor The tonse l' lUmerousWesternwaterprojects Underfederalrecla~ation law, Southeastern Colorado Warer Gcneral June Gibbs Brown com~ eluded tha~v~.~ohn g~oup con- :ontends that if 560 million is not the cost of much of the project can Conservancy District general plctcd an audit of the project g~neral believed that l~~fscc,tuob: 'd b d h which recommended that 'he'd' manager.sal c answcre 1 e 51 Ization of the pro)'ec' f d , 'h h \1.. Bureau of Reclamation shift 569 b f' e era ion s c arges w cn 'I('Y ene Iciaries by the general tax- were f"5t ,d '"ree lea, go million worth of the proj'ect costs :... rai ell. r a , paY,ers ,was not supported by the Thomson said a detailed at- Crom the nOD-reimbursable to prOject S legislative histon- or counting of how the EGO million fit reimbursable accounts. authorizing legislation." ~ in non.recoverable categories The inspector general said was approved in 1981 by offici4l15 .:allocating the $69 million to non. of tt\e Interior Depanment and reimbursable features oC the pro. the Bureau of Reclamation. ject amounted to a subsidy for "After a very careful review waler and power users who the allegations were found to be should have had to pay that unfounded and without supporl." amount. Thomsoo said. The Bureau of Reclamation, Thomson said many of the costs however, ag.reed to shin only $9 the federatioo "mistakenly" million or the costs. categorized a.s recoverable in. The Wildlife Federation said eluded the money spent to meet none of that money has made it to demands lodged by the very same environmental groups that are leveling the charges. He said a rustic fcnce around the Mount Elbert Power Plant, and roads built to higher than necessary specifications put for. ward by the environmental groups, are examples of the costs in question. "They (the improvements) didn't add a single drop of water to the system but were done to please the very same people that are now asking us to pay," he said. "We could have done yery well Thomson said it would not be fair to make local water users pay f for portions of the project reo {- quested by environmenlal grvups or undertaken to beneCit recrea.. tion needs such as those provided for at Pueblo Reservoir. "We feel very comfortable and strong in our view that the charges they say should be paid by us are inappropriate," he said,