Perhaps I can help regarding the discussion about the nature and legal underpinnings of the funding from the two states. If one looks closely at the table that Don Richter provided, the fine print in the comments section describes most of the Colorado funding as being from "grants". Although subject to legislative review, these grants are not "approprations" in the narrow sense, but are real money nontheless. The table does show ALL the money provided by the two states and the federal government, nothing is left out.
Because of fundamentally flawed assumptions in Colorado about the applicability of TABOR to the C&TS, the only way that Colorado has managed to provide any meaningful funding to the C&TSRR has been through grants from its Dept. of Local Affairs and its Economic Development Commission.
Furthermore, as is now becoming understood, because the C&TSRR is a constitutional compact between the two soverign states (in other words a binding treaty) Colorado ought to be obligated to uphold its end of the compact and not use TABOR to avoid its contractual obligations. While there are numerous U. S. Supreme Court precedents reinforcing this view, this matter is properly the provinance of the Colorado legislature and its Attorney General to consider.
If you are a Colorado citizen and you care for the C&TS, you ought to contact your elected and appointed state officials about the mis-application of TABOR to the C&TS Compact. I've heard that some of your elected representatives are aware of this "mis-application" and that your Office of the Attorney-General is also reserching the legal ramifications.
I should also add that, back in 1999 when the Commission issued an RFP to replace Bartholomew, that package contained a record of funding from the two states going back some 20 years. The amounts end up being equal.
One good example of the leads-and-lags of funding occured back when the Osier Dining Hall was proposed. Even though the two states have an equal and undivided interest in the ownership of the C&TS, New Mexico's appropriation was derailed for a year when legislators learned the facility was to be located in Colorado. Once they understood the nature of the joint ownership, the appropriation passed in the following year and construction commenced.
