OCR Text |
Show Report of the Regional Director inequitable to allocate to irrigation and/or power, and thereby roquire project water users and power usora to repays costs properly allocable to public recreation* Likewise, sodinent control, whioh would materially benefit downstream developments, and particularly I^ke Mead, are of regional and national significance* Because of this national significance of the recreational and sediment control benefits, the costs allocablo to these project benefits wore considered nonreimbursable on the p.ssumption that, if pending general legislation to that effect were not already enacted, tho enabling legislation for the Dixie Project would provide that these- allocations be nonreimbursable. Total nonreimbursable costs, therefore, are $2,785,000. A total of $23,87?,000 was allocated to irrigation and power, to be repaid by project water users, and revenues from an ad valorem tax and power* This amount comprises the reimbursable costs of tho project* Repayment 5>7# Previous discussion has indicated that large local indirect benefits would result from tho project development, It is reasonable to expect local indirect beneficiaries, as well as the direct beneficiaries, to share in the repayment of project construction. It is proposed to reach these indirect beneficiaries through the organization of a con-* servancy district under the Utah State Yfotor Conservancy Act of 19Ul« This organization v/ould have the power to raise revenues through taxation of all real and personal property within the district boundaries. In addition it would serve as the agency which would contract v/ith the United States for repayment of the reimbursable costs, obtain necessary land and water rights, collect water charges, operate and maintain at least the new irrigation works, allocate project water, and generally conduct the,affairs of the project. The State Y/ater Conservancy Act permits a levy of one mill on all property in the district and an additional levy of one-half mill, if necessary, to pay defaults and deficiencies on tho contracts or bonds of the district* Because of the extended repayment period of the project and because of local benefits from tho project, a higher levy v/as doemed to be equitable* Informal discussions v/ith leaders in tho community and State indicate that a five mill levy v/ould bo accepted. State legislation authorizing this rate would be required, however. Based on estimates of the assessed valuation of property in the proposed conservancy district, and a five ni 11 ad valorem tax levy, annual revenues ranging from $28,?OO to $±0,000 annually could be collected, which amounts could be applied against tho reimbursable construction cost. 17 |
Source |
Original book: Utah exhibits [of the] State of Arizona, complainant, v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, City of San Diego, and County of San Diego, defendants, United States of America and State of Nevada, interveners, State of New Mexico and State of Utah, parties |