Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0404 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Meanwhile, the Bureau expects that it will take 2 to 4 <br />years to firm up the need for power from the revised Diamond <br />Fork, as reflected in non-Federal financial commitments which <br />the Bureau intends to seek. If the Diamond Fork enlargement <br />falls through, however, the costs of M&I features will go back <br />up, once again exceeding any lesser amount the CUWCD may agree <br />later this year to repay on the basis of the current cost <br />allocation. <br /> <br />In a February 29, 1984 memorandum to Commissioner <br />Broadbent, Regional Director Clifford Barrett laid out these <br />latest revisions to the repayment plan for the Bonneville <br />Unit. Barrett explained the CUWCD's posture by saying: <br /> <br />They are terribly concerned about an election failing <br />and frankly would like to avoid one, particularly <br />since SOme counties have threatened to pullout of the <br />Central Utah Project. The district's perception is <br />that construction has been untimely, underfunded, at <br />times badly managed, and sometimes overdesigned. <br />These factors, they feel, entitle them to some relief <br />from rising M&I costs. We believe they will <br />aggressively pursue Congressional relief of a portion <br />of the as-yet uncovered M&I costs, perhaps ~n amount <br />as much as their remaining uncovered obligation. If <br />they are successful on the Bonneville Unit, the M&I <br />costs to be recovered by a new repayment arrangement <br />with the CUWCD would be lower or the need negated. <br /> <br />Thus, local willingness to repay the full share of <br />reimbursable costs of the Bonneville Unit is now known by the <br />Bureau to be shakier than ever. Nevertheless, the Bureau <br />continues to commit even greater sums of Federal dollars into <br />the project. Since January 1981, over $220 million has been <br />allocated for construction on the Bonneville Unit. In <br />acdition, BuRec has requested $104 million from Congress for <br />construction funds for Fiscal Year 1985. <br /> <br />Apportionment of Storage Project Revenues <br /> <br />In the above-mentioned August 12, 1980 comments, Acting <br />Assistant Secretary Beard remarked that BuRec would obtain an <br />opinion from the Solicitor's office on the question of the <br />apportionment method. However, Beard also stated that BuRec <br />believed its "reversion to the pre-1973 method of handling the <br />apportionment of surplus project revenues complies with the <br />requirements of the CRSP act." On October 6, 1980 BuRec <br /> <br />:/Portions of this item were denied t~IF by the Interior <br />Department. <br /> <br />89 <br />