My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP07941
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
7001-8000
>
WSP07941
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:29:30 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 2:41:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8113.600
Description
Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee - ARBIC
Basin
Arkansas
Water Division
2
Date
4/2/1985
Title
Statement of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee -- Relative to Appropriations for the Comprehensive Development of the Arkansas River Basin for Fiscal Year 1986
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.
/
32
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 /> <br />. <br /> <br />" <br />, <br /> <br />> <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />~ Statement of Houston <br />C) April 2, 1985 <br />"oO) <br />'" <br />~ <br />Q} <br /> <br />Adams <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />The Administration's proposals for ton-mile fees that would produce <br />revenues approximating 85 percent of the costs for the inland waterway <br />system are reportedly based on a "free market test" of the economic <br />feasibility. Our "best case" example is the 445-river mile McClellan-Kerr <br />Arkansas River Navigation System. If the users were charged for the full <br />cost of its operation and maintenance, and any new construction required, <br />the users ability and willinl1:ness to pay would constitute a "market test" <br />of its economic feasibility. If the users could not pay the fees imposed, <br />it would be declared not justified and the navigation system terminated. <br /> <br />The current proposals do not consider the effect of across-the-board <br />user fees of the magnitude advanced, that if approved, would lead to the <br />demise of the barge and towing industry and the termination of navigation <br />on the inland waterway system. No revenues from user fees would be <br />available at that point to offset the expenditures required to maintain the <br />other features of the multiple purpose projects -- such as flood damage <br />prevention, <br /> <br />Instead of the above, we urge flexible financing arrangements that <br />allow a partnership of federal, state and local governments with the <br />private sector, and "fair share" determinations made based on the project <br />involved. Realistic cost allocations must be developed based on intermodal <br />equity and public value aspects considered in order to arrive at a "fair <br />share." The Federal Government must join as a major partner in planning, <br />design and construction. <br /> <br />Further, we are concerned that there have been no "new construction <br />authorizations" for 14 years. Not only are the many recommended projects <br />urgently needed, but the large-scale design, engineering, and construction <br />management is needed by the Corps of Engineers in order to be prepared for <br />their role in mobilizing for a national emergency. We must remember that <br />80+ percent of the domestic cargo moved during World War II was on the <br />waterways, leaving the railways and highways to support military movement. <br /> <br />We appreciate the concern the Subcommittee has shown in the past <br />regarding a drastic reduction in funding water resource development in this <br />country. We support and encourage continued water development in order to <br />assure adequate resources for America's future growth and prosperity. <br /> <br />We thank the distinguished Committee for the opportunity to present <br />our views on Oklahoma's FY 1986 water development requirements. <br /> <br />22 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.