Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />.' <br /> <br />0398 <br /> <br />AUDIT <br /> <br />Time Period of the Audit <br /> <br />The last year covered by the audit was Fiscal Year 1977. <br />The audit work was performed during 1978 and 1979. <br /> <br />Audit Findings <br /> <br />Inspector General June Gibbs Brown identified sev~ral <br />problems with repayment provisions of CRSP. She considered the <br />first two problems outlined below to be so serious that if left <br />unresolved they "could materially affect the project's <br />financial condition in future years." <br /> <br />(1) Bonneville Unit Repayment Contract <br /> <br />BuRec and CUWCD entered into a repayment contract in 1965 <br />which explicitly limited CUWCD's obligation to repay the costs <br />allocated to municipal and industrial (M&I) and irrigation <br />water supply facilities to $156.8 million.. Based on BuRec's <br />1979 estimate to complete the M&I features of the project, this <br />contract provision would preclude recovery of $198 million of <br />reimbursable costs above and beyond the $156 million <br />limitation. The Inspector General found that BuRec had <br />forecast that Bonneville Unit construction expenditures would <br />exceed the $156.8 million obligation during Fiscal Year 1981, <br />but had not taken any action to amend the repayment contract to <br />provide for repayment of the project cost increases. Since the <br />time of the audit, BuRec cost estimates have risen and the <br />ccntract limitation now precludes thi recovery of approximately <br />$228 million of reimbursable costs.: <br /> <br />(2) Apportionment of Storage Project Revenues <br /> <br />CRSP's authorization provides that storage project revenues <br />will be used to repay storage project investment costs, after <br />which the remaining revenues will be credited to the upper <br />basin states in the following manner: Colorado, 46%; Utah, <br />21.5%; New Mexico, 17%; Wyoming, 15.5%. These remaining <br />storage project revenues are apportioned to the states to <br />insure repayment of federal investment costs a~p,licable to <br />participating projects located in each state.~7 <br /> <br />:/NWF staff computation (see Appendix V). <br /> <br />::/These revenues are not actually remitted to the <br />states, but rather are just earmarked within the Upper Colorado <br />River Basin Fund for payment to the general fund of the <br />Treasury for the participating projects' costs. <br /> <br />83 <br />