Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br /> <br />apparently believes that the federal government should just hand over the equivalent of a <br />government subsidy that may be worth billions of dollars, even though the public <br />' receives almost nothing in return. Alcoa's arguments about protecting a "privately- <br />' owned business" are really about making sure Alcoa-a privately-owned business-gets <br />a great big government handout. <br />t <br />' Federal takeover has to be done at the end of a license. For the Yadkin Project, that <br />means now. The law and Alcoa's license are very specific about the price to be paid and <br />' the process of returning the water to its rightful owner: the public. <br />' Alcoa, in its agreement with the government, acknowledged it had a license to use <br />Project Property to generate power from the public's resource for 50 years, at which time <br />the licensed expired. (Project Property boils down to the land under the water and all the <br />' other assets necessary to use the river to produce electrical power.) Alcoa, in the <br />agreement, acknowledged that the government could refuse to renew that license. <br />Congress believed that a 50-year license provided sufficient time for an investor to <br />' amortize or recover its cost of the project and to receive a fair financial reward for <br />' building the dams. A 50-year license provided a specific deadline at which the license <br />would expire and the public would have an opportunity to regain control of their water <br />1 resources for their own prosperity. It is our right; it is our law. It is corporate spin from <br />Alcoa in arguing that its property is unlawfully being taken. The facts don't agree. <br /> <br /> <br />Attachment number 4 <br />' F-2 Page 65 of 320 <br />