Laserfiche WebLink
<br />would be required from power users to develop the irrigation component of the <br />projects and questioned the desirability of Federal Government sponsorship without <br />further consideration of alternatives, In the 26 years since authorization of the <br />projects, the feasibility of irrigation has decreased. As shown in Table 2; the costs <br />for both projects have more than doubled, and the assistance from power users to <br />help defray the allocated costs of irrigation beyond the irrigators' ability to pay hIlS <br />increased by over $250 million since the projects were initially planned in the late <br />1970s. However, as noted in our 1989 report on the recovery of the Government's <br />investment for the Colorado River Storage Project, the burden on the power users <br />is greatly mitigated by the fact that they repay their portion of the irrigation <br />investment after they have repaid the power investment, Consequently, the <br />Government's return on irrigation is significantly diminished since the investment is <br />recovered without interest toward the end of the Project's repayment period, <br />Federal taxpayers therefore absorb the financial burden associated with deferring <br />recovery of the irrigation development costs. <br /> <br />"i <br /> <br />~; <br />i <br />, <br />, <br />, <br /> <br />Table 2, Comparison of Repayment Sources From <br />Initial Planning to Current Day <br /> <br />Per Initial Per 1994 <br />Definite Plan Budget <br />Reoorls Justification <br />(Amounts in (008) <br /> <br />Dolores Project - Initially planned in 1m <br />Construction cost per allocation irrigation <br />Irrigation construction cost repayment <br />Water users <br />Property taxes <br />Prepayment <br />Indian repayment deferral <br />Power assistance <br />Total <br />Animas-La Plata Project - Initially planned in 1979 <br />Construction cost per allocation irrigation <br />Irrigation construction cost repayment <br />Water users <br />Property taxes <br />Cost sharing' <br />Contributions and other <br />Indian repayment deferral <br />Power assistance <br />Total <br /> <br />$147.268 <br /> <br />12,870 <br />4,300 <br />420 <br />o <br />129.678 <br />$147,268 <br /> <br />$235.707 <br /> <br />18,825 <br />9,433 <br />o <br />634 <br />4,565 <br />202.250 <br />$235.707 <br /> <br />$365.552 <br /> <br />7,425 <br />16,600 <br />487 <br />5,445 <br />335.595 <br />$365.552 <br /> <br />$487.733 <br /> <br />20,430 <br />27,817 <br />184,355 <br />634 <br />6,322 <br />248.175 <br />~487. 733 <br /> <br />. Non-Federal cost sharing was required by Congressional directive. which had the effect of reducing the <br />amount of power assistance otherwise required for the irrigation fundion. <br /> <br />10 <br />