BDCP, Who's Paying....

[Darian]

An article in the LA Times reports that who will repay costs involved in construction of the project is not yet settled. Up to this point, a principal of this repayment scheme has been that those who benefit pay the costs. This article states that potential agricultural users are, lately, not in the mood to participate. Check it out:

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-d...#axzz2j4DCme9l

One of the points made in the article is that BuRec policy on water projects is to contract for repayment of project costs without including interest. Even the state charges interests on repayment of contractual debt. And, believe it or not, agricultural users are reported to be behind on repayment of the federal debt.

Amazing....!!! Water contractors purchase cheap water from the feds, get an interest free loan, and then fail to repay the contractual debt. Let's see....

Is there any incentive for water contractors to repay a long term, interest free loan that nobody's trying to collect???

Is there any prospect of the feds using the potential of receiving larger volumes of diverted water to bring the water contractors back in line and making them repay their debt???

In my cynical view of the process and entities (federal/state) involved, I would say NO!!!!

[Mike McKenzie]

An article in the LA Times reports that who will repay costs involved in construction of the project is not yet settled. Up to this point, a principal of this repayment scheme has been that those who benefit pay the costs. This article states that potential agricultural users are, lately, not in the mood to participate. Check it out:

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-d...#axzz2j4DCme9l

One of the points made in the article is that BuRec policy on water projects is to contract for repayment of project costs without including interest. Even the state charges interests on repayment of contractual debt. And, believe it or not, agricultural users are reported to be behind on repayment of the federal debt.

Amazing....!!! Water contractors purchase cheap water from the feds, get an interest free loan, and then fail to repay the contractual debt. Let's see....

Is there any incentive for water contractors to repay a long term, interest free loan that nobody's trying to collect???

Is there any prospect of the feds using the potential of receiving larger volumes of diverted water to bring the water contractors back in line and making them repay their debt???

In my cynical view of the process and entities (federal/state) involved, I would say NO!!!!

You're right in that the almost $500 million will never be paid back. For a good read on the Westlands massive scam of the taxpayers and ratepayers in California.. Take a look here:

http://www.ewg.org/Throwing-Good-Money-at-Bad-Land ..

Enjoy!

Mike

[Larry S]

Darian & Mike,
Thanks for your inputs. Always appreciate your efforts to educate and inform us. I understand that there are
opposing views and am thankful that we have this forum to express such.
Best,
Larry S

[OceanSunfish]

You're right in that the almost $500 million will never be paid back. For a good read on the Westlands massive scam of the taxpayers and ratepayers in California.. Take a look here:

http://www.ewg.org/Throwing-Good-Money-at-Bad-Land ..

Enjoy!

Mike

Maddening! There is simply no integrity remaining in our current form of gov't. I know, I know, I state the obvious.

[Darian]

Well,.... We should realize that the contracts that BuRec set in motion for the initial infrastructure investments were executed approximately 50 years ago. During that period, BuRec was trying to encourage farming use of the vacant, tainted land to increase ag production in that valley. The failure to include an interest charge on the loans was undoubtedly a part of the incentives. IMO, still not a good idea but the thought was not without a good objective.

I do have a major problem with the fact that the feds haven't recovered all of the money owed on the interest free loan during the last 50 years, regardless of whether or not the feds are in compliance with the contract to construct a drainage system. I believe that issue has become a red herring for Westlands to use in trying to force BuRec into giving them all of the concessions (water and infrastructure property) from the list of alternatives mentioned in the EWG memo. The dollar value involved is very large. Westlands should make good on payment of the remaining debt and then negotiate for completion of the drainage system. BTW, a drainage system, by itself, will only move the problem of polluted water downstream into the Delta. The beneficiary of that system would be growers. Without treatment of the tainted water prior to release, Nothing downstream from the outlet of that system would change.

The EWG memo was dated in 2010 when direct cash subsidies were in vogue. The latest version of the federal farm bill (in Congress) eliminates direct cash subsidies in exchange for crop insurance fully paid by the taxpayers, plus a few other bennies.

Just for a moment, think about the value of the potential deal that Westlands, et. al., wants from BuRec that would essentially give control of CVP to Westlands, potentially shifting the Lions share of the cost of the BDC from themselves to ratepayers, and the value of taxpayer subsidized crop insurance for all growers. Seems to me that if Big-Ag pulls this off, they're gonna be fat cats (What the Hell, they are already)....