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 />0405 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Commissioner Higginson requested Solicitor Leo Krulitz to issue <br />an opinion on this question, and in the above-mentioned <br />December 2, 1980 memorandum, Acting Assistant Secretary Beard <br />informed Inspector General Brown that such an opinion had been <br />requested. <br /> <br />On December 17, 1980 Associati Solicitor for Energy and <br />Resources John R. Little, Jr. determined that the method of <br />revenue apportionment BuRec adopted in 1979 "does comply with <br />the requirements of the CRSP Act." On January 3, 1981 Acting <br />Assistant Secretary Beard informed Inspector General Brown of <br />the Associate Solicitor's opinion and of BuRec's intention to <br />continue using this apportionment method. <br /> <br />Repayment of Irrigation Costs <br /> <br />In the above-mentioned August 12', 1980 comments, Acting <br />Assistant Secretary Beard reaffirmed BuRec's position limiting <br />periodic rate adjustments only to water service contracts. <br />BuRec excluded repayment contracts because of "possible legal <br />constraints contained in Reclamation law, varying State <br />requirements limiting potential debt ceilings for a given <br />contracting entity, and the practical uncertainties created by <br />voter approval and State endorsements." Beard added, though, <br />that DuRec "recognized that in some instances a dramatic <br />increase in irrigators' ability to pay demonstrates possible <br />inequities to other project beneficiaries such as power <br />users." Beard said that BuRec either had instituted or was <br />currently reviewing several options for reducing these possible <br />inequities, and listed the fOllowing items: <br /> <br />"(1) using a water service and fixed repayment <br />combination contracting form which would allow <br />periodic review and adjustment of the water service <br />charges; (2) utilizing 100% of irrigators' ability to <br />pay in new or amendatory contracting actions by <br />excluding contingency allowances in payment capacity <br />determinations for all irrigation contracting <br />programs; and (3) requiring repayment terms to be <br />renegotiated at every feasible opportunity." <br /> <br />In the above-mentioned December 2, 1980 memorandum to Inspector <br />General Brown, Beard reported that BuRec anticipated <br />publication of its instructions entitled "Water Service, <br />Repayment, and Related Contracts" during 1981, which would set <br />forth procedures for implementing the policies expressed in his <br />August 12 memorandum. <br /> <br />As of March 1984, more than three years later, these <br />instructions still were not final and publication was not <br />anticipated until July 1984. <br /> <br />90 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.