BPA & $$$ for salmon

[6wapiti6]

I heard briefly on the news this morning about the BPA budgeting about $35 million for salmon funding on the Columbia? I was still half asleep and did not catch the whole story. Was I dreaming or did anyonelse hear anything about this? :shrug:

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

I heard 34 million in cuts?

CBB article (http://znetprime.znetsolutions.com/cbb.nsf/92b17efd967f9af0882568720003be01/bb5dc7bf1e27cbf188256cb8007ccd77?OpenDocument)

[CohoKen]

BPA is just holding the spending to last years budget. Just not approving the additional projects over previous years budgets. Can't justify increased spending on any projects while raising rates to customers. This I would have to agree with, if BPA raises rates everyones rates will increase and this won't help the economy. :depressed:

[Thumper]

You gotta love the liberals! Rather than increasing annual spending by $34 million to $173 million, the BPA seeks to keep its spending at the same level ($139 million annually). So the press and *** call it a $34 millon cut!

And they do it with a straight face.......

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Thumper

The “fiscal” 2003 budget began in the summer of 2002. That would mean that if a project began or was slated to begin during fiscal 2003, and they removed the funding for the slated projects at this time, most people would say that they “cut” it from the current 2003 budget :hoboy:

They did not remove it from the proposed fiscal 2004 budget that starts this summer; they took it out of the current budget. :shrug:

If you believe that the CBB is a liberal paper then you are more republican than Supreme Court Justices who elected our current president :grin:

[ 01-29-2003, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: *** Clerk ]

[Wood N' Fish]

35 million in cuts is more lilely. Fish and wildlife programs are gonna suffer! The money mirage that we have been privilaged to for the past years-----has disappeared!!!! :whazzup: HANG :grin: :grin: IN THERE!!!

[CohoKen]

***,

The fiscal year for 2003 start Oct 1, 2002. The project approval is done in April or May of 2002 for the 2003 fiscal year. BPA sets the budget amount in September.

Now here is the key information, BPA asked F&W to hold to previous budget amounts in Sept., it is just now hitting the press actively because of the Measure 28 ballot and its implications.

So this "cut" was not a cut because it happened before the budget was submitted or approved.

Now, the budget has not been submitted or approved on time this year because F & W are trying to accomodate the budget constraint to previous years level. The final approval or denial has not occurred because BPA hasn't gotten the budget submitted from F& W yet.

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

CohoKen

Hmmmm… did not know they put the budget on hold. I thought that you could not begin a fiscal year without a budget. That is something here in Oregon we can not do. Holding off setting what you are going to spend seems irresponsible, it would be like getting a loan from a bank to build a house and telling the bank you did not know how much it was going to cost, but when you were done they could pony up the money?

But the BPA is screwed up anyway…

[CohoKen]

Existing budget limits continue until a new budget is approved, no different then the federal budget which has yet to be signed by the Pres. Congress just keeps passing a continuing bill to keep the gov funded. Federal gov is that way with budgets, not like private industry or reasonable folks like us.