WSP08244 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

GJl75~ at Hoover, Davis, and Parker'Dnns, It is also used for irrigation and nunicipal purpose~, Hmmveri by terns of the Coloro.do River COf.1pact and the Upper Basin States COf.1pnct, the TInter proposed for diversion by the project is Colorndo's share, to be used as the State desires, Any stuiy of the detrinental cl'fects would have to consider not only such p~esent usess but also whether or not thc proposed oxporta- tions could be considered spills or unused raleasos frcrl the dans on the Color~de Rrler, and n~"ereus technical as~ects such as losses e~ route to the pmver plants. Under tho Fryingpan".\rkansas Project,. the diverted ,:ator yp uld uti- lize noro paVler he::Ld and de'.relop nore poner on the eastern slope than it nOVi docs in the Color ad) River Basin. I' r " ;,ny yrestern slope j otrhwnts are considered 1.10re than offset because: (a) no indirect parrer bonef;_ts are c.LaL.lO(I, (b) narc pO':ler would be pro- duced on -(ho eastern slope than erG p:::'esent and (c) the water to be ex- ported IDS been allocated to the State of Colorado. I I , 14o(n) Questien - How nueh interest on the nationnl debt occasioned by the proposed pr-ojcct YlOuld be berne by the Hation I S taxpayers, nssU8- ing repaynent of the construction cost (including intercst during con- struction) in necordanee ".1. th the proscmtly proposed rC;:Jayr.:ent plan covering a period of 69 yenrs, and assU!.ling a rensonable ;)eriod of cen- structiOl'l.. (iIO'l'E: The presently proposed repaynent plan W2.S rc;erred to at the hearings as the "Collbran or :,lOdified Collbrnn fOr!:Jula".) " ~ 1<11S\7Or - This question is closely relnted to quesolons 10(c) and 10(d) which are concern~d ~1.th interest cost resulting frrn:J dufer2.ent of repaynent on a portion of the irrigation invest'JCnt. ;'s vms stated in ans'::ering those questiens, any attenpt to rolnte total construction costs and interest d::'rectly to repaynent is apt to produce distorted results on a !"lroject as extensive o.s the Fryingpnn- ;.rkansas. B:\' lan, investnents fer flood control Gond fish-wildlife facili tics are no'~ enly inter8st-free but Gore also non-reinbursnble. Both of those invesb:Jents prcduce benefits which offset t~e allocated construction cost 2_nd the interest cost, The investnent in irrigation fncilities is also non-interest bearing by law, however the principal is reinbursable. The irrigation inves'Gnent produces or results in the pro- duction of in cone extending beyond the farwcrs who use the wnter, - 19 -