Laserfiche WebLink
<br />on17,~ ~ <br /> <br />Many farmers in the valley in addition to thoir interost in <br />supplementary irrigation .roter have requosted services from <br />the pipeline for domestic use and state they also are willing <br />and able to pay the proposed rates. <br /> <br />Yours very truly, <br /> <br />/5/ l~ G. Williamsen <br /> <br />H. G. Williamson <br />Ex8cutivo Secretary-Treasurer" <br /> <br />10. (a) Quostion - ~fuat justification is there for d8ferment in <br />starting repaynlent of substantial part of construction costs allocated <br />to irrigation, 50 to 60 years aftor the beneficiaries start to use the <br />facilities and the water supply furnished thereby? <br /> <br />I, <br />r <br />" <br />, <br />I; <br />I' <br />[: <br /> <br />Ansner - The direct beneficiaries vlill start repayment as soon as <br />,vater is available. Irrigators, municipalities, and power consumers .lill <br />be the direct beneficiaries and not revonues from the start of service <br />vdll be credited to costs allocated te each of those functions. Indirect <br />beneficiaries will also assume repayment responsibilities at the start of <br />the payout period through the conservaney district. <br /> <br />.- <br /> <br />The question of deferment probably refors to that portion of the irri-. <br />gation allocation to ,'lhich power and municipal vater revenues are applied <br />after the cost of those two functiens are repaid. Power and municipal <br />water revenues could also be applied te irrigation from the beginning of <br />the payout schedule. Hovrever, that precedure ..ould not comply vri.th the <br />Collbran formula used for the study. Thus thc defaTQent in application <br />of power and municipal ,vater revenues to tho irrigation allocation is tho <br />result of the formula used. <br /> <br />Actually, because the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project is a true multiple- <br />purpose development, the repayment aspect should be vi6\7od in its entiroty <br />and not necessarily by function or component. The plain facts are that the <br />irrigators cannot alone ropay in 40 or 50 years the cost of facilities <br />~ch Tlill last hundreds of years. The project as a wholo is financially <br />and economically sound. Each function and eaeh direct beneficiary con- <br />tributes toward the over-all as well as tovrard the specific costs. <br /> <br />10. (b) Question - Is it not implicit in the Recla~ation la..from its <br />inception that tho irrigation ,;ater users, in view of interest-froe financ- <br />ing, vrould start to repay the reimbursable cost chargeable to irrigation as <br />s?on as the works are put into operation and at a rate per year that would <br />payoff tho obligation vdthout interest in tho period proscribed by law <br />(now 40 years)? <br /> <br />- 10 - <br />