WSP09067 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

00034l 29 "Most water resource development proponents believe that five years is too short a grace period; they point out that ongoing projects often experience delays of five years or more for data collection or other planning purposes. Projects now in process, they contend, should not be affected by the new standards, since they change the entire ground rules for project formulation and evaluation. ". . . One of the objectives of water resource planning in the future is to be environmental quality. It should have been considered long ago. It was a mistake for the Budget Bureau to insist that economic efficiency should be the overriding consider- ation in evaluating every river plan. But it would be a mistake now, I believe, to go all the way in the other direction and give priority to the environmental objective. What we need is a fair and complete environmental analysis as well as a thorough and realistic economic analysis. II ***** "Navigation programs, in particular, seem to corne under the gun in the proposed standards. Low-cost water transportation can be of tremendous importance in achieving national objectives, including enhanced economic productivity while restraining infla- tionary pressures. Rather than taking advantage of navigation programs, however, OMB persists in throwing up new obstacles. II * * * * * liThe cost of transportation concept is a fine theory but it is hardly practical in analyzing the economics of water vs. rail transportation. And besides, it is in direct conflict with the formula set down in the Department of Transportation Act. This is a basic inconsistency in the proposed standards which should be resolved by elimination of the 'willingness to pay' stipulation. II Mr. Ted Pankowski, lzaak Walton League of America "ln our judgment, they [the Principles and Standards] could lead to the development of an environmentally responsive process for the satisfaction of economic and social needs. II * * * * *