My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP06085
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
6001-7000
>
WSP06085
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:21:12 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 1:25:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8141
Description
Fryingpan-Arkansas Project
State
CO
Basin
Arkansas
Water Division
2
Date
5/22/1984
Author
National Wildlife Fe
Title
Shortchanging the Treasury--The Failure of the Department of the Interior to Comply with the Inspector Generals Audit Recommendations to Recover the Costs of Federal Water Projects--select chapters pr
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />0400 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />(4) Interest Rate for Replacements and Additions <br /> <br />Inspector General Brown determined that BuRec understated <br />interest costs on future replacements and additions to CRSP <br />facilities by basing such costs on the project interest rate <br />(~ 5(f) of the CRSP Act) rather than the rate fotmula set forth <br />by Secretarial Order 2929 (January 29, 1970). In order to more <br />closely reflect the current interest cost on government bor- <br />rowings and establish a standard formula for fixing interest <br />rates on new federal power projects and transmission facili- <br />ties, the Secretary of the Interior issued Order 2929. However, <br />on October 29, 1973, the BuRec Commissioner issued a directive <br />entitled "Implementatiori of Uniform Power Repayment Procedures," <br />exempting CRSP from the requirements of the Secretarial Order. <br />Inspector General Brown questioned whether this directive con- <br />formed with Secretarial Order 2929, and whether it was a neces- <br />sary interpretation of CRSP's authorization. <br /> <br />Shortfall as a Result of Inspector General's Findings <br /> <br />(1) <br /> <br />Shortfall due <br />limitations: <br />has now risen <br />cost) . <br /> <br />to Bonneville Unit repayment contract <br />$198 million at the time of the audit, <br />to approximately $228 million (initial <br /> <br />(2) Inadequate power revenues due to apportionment <br />policy: $234 million at the time of the audit, $288 <br />million at the time the audit was considered resolved <br />(over the life of the project). <br /> <br />(3) Failure to increase irrigator's ability to pay' $52.6 <br />million (over the life of the project). <br /> <br />Audit Recommendations <br /> <br />(1) BuRec should advise CUWCD of the date by which a <br />repayment contract, which ensures full repayment by water users <br />of federal investment costs, must be executed. BuRec should <br />also outline the options for CU\,CD and the most likely action <br />that will be taken if contract terms are not agreed upon. <br /> <br />(2) The Solicitor (Dept. of Interior) should issue an <br />opinion to determine if BuRec's method of apportioning storage <br />project revenues complies with the requirements of the CRSP <br />authorization. If found improper, BuRec should request WAPA to <br />implement power rates which will produce sufficient revenues to <br />repay participating project costs within the time period <br />established by law. <br /> <br />85 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.