My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP08028
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
8001-9000
>
WSP08028
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:29:51 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 2:43:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.200.05.M
Description
Hoover Dam/Lake Mead/Boulder Canyon Project
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
5/31/1951
Author
USDOI
Title
Tenth Annual Report: Boulder Canyon Project
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Annual Report
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
67
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 />:J') <br />:0 <br />..-! <br /> <br />c <br /> <br />In 1943 the power allottees protested in unison, stating that they <br />did not feel it to be their obligation to underwrite, in the power <br />rates, the costs inherent with an unlimited economic and social <br />growth of Boulder City. Recognizing the legitimacy of the com- <br />plaint, the Bureau made several formal studies of the problem and <br />made one special report to Congress thereon. However, in the <br />absence of any specific authority for nonreimbursable appropria- <br />tions with which to operate Boulder City beyond the scope reasonably <br />judged as necessary for the project, it was necessary to incur in- <br />creasing deficits, as the town grew, for repayment in the revenues <br />from sales of power, at rates affected increasingly from these <br />deficits. <br /> <br />In 1948, however, the power allottees quietly expressed their <br />undeviating interest in the problem of obtaining legislation which <br />would remove from their obligation to p'ay all of the so-called "non- <br />project" expenditures and investments for Federal activities other <br />than Boulder Canyon project operations. This segregation was, of <br />course, aimed directly at the nonproject investments and expendi- <br />tures applicable to Boulder City. <br /> <br />This legislation was in the form of a special proviso in Public <br />Law 841, 80th Congress, 2d Session, and, while it provided some <br />relief to the power allottees, it intensified the Bureau's dilemma. <br />It had the effect of segregating project activities from nonproject <br />FEDERAL activities, but left dangling the matter of costs attrib- <br />utable to the general public segment of Boulder City. It resulted <br />moreover in according the Bureau of Reclamation the unhappy role <br />of seeking annual appropriations with which to perpetuate the sup- <br />port of Boulder City--in brief, it brought the whole problem of sub- <br />Sidy into sharp focus. <br /> <br />For any number of administrative considerations it was obvious <br />that the Bureau could not undertake the dedication of Boulder City to <br />a local self-sustaining Government in one spasmodic gesture; thus it <br />settled upon a plan involving several intermediate motions which <br />would fundamentally provide a systematic foundation upon which <br />transition might proceed. As the first step in this program, the <br />Bureau undertook an expert analysis of the problem and for this <br /> <br />13 <br /> <br />- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.