Quote Originally Posted by Darian View Post
Interesting findings. I have no doubt that the money was not authorized to be used for planning but after reading the article, I'm thinking there're some conflicting statements made about re-payment. One example is the following:

"By California law and by an agreement by the water districts, California water districts and not federal taxpayers are supposed to bear the costs of the $16 billion project,....."

The statement refers to total project construction costs. The last I read, planning costs were not included in that estimate. I've been following the project for some time now and I'm unaware of any legal mandate for water contractors to repay planning costs. Since it's been reported that an agreement of any sort is yet to be completed as water contractors are debating the cost effectiveness of the project for themselves, there couldn't be an agreement to cover those costs unless informal. Total planning costs have been reported as approaching $200 million in the print media several times over the last few years without any great uproar. Shared costs???....

Oh well,....
I fear Darian is right. Planning costs seem to have been left out of the "cost of the project" but then again, in a $16 Billion project, what is $250mill -- especially when the $16 Billion will grow to ?? And not a peep from any of our elected officials.