Laserfiche WebLink
<br />t- <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />~f~~:~~:Si; <br />~~:l:i~i <br />'-::.; <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />li1iii.'j.llt.~~iW~.1iIIIi~ <br /> <br />002754 <br /> <br />-7- <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The evaluation of the costs and benefits of water prpject is in need of <br />improvement. This is particula.rly true with respect to the benefit <br />side of the equation as it related to municipal watel' supply, to hydro- <br />electric power, to recreation, and to industrial use of water. Time <br />and again projects have been constructed which provide benefits to <br />these purposes, and it has turned out that the benefits were substan- <br />tially underestimated in the formation process. A prime example <br />is Flaming Gorge. For those of you who are not natives of our State <br />I should explain that Flaming Gorge is one of the major impoundment <br />projects on the Colorado River. It.is located in the northeast portion <br />of the State of Utah and backs water up the Green River across the <br />Utah border, well into the state of Wyoming. As I recall my figures <br />when filled to capacity this reservoir will contain somewhere over <br />3 million feet; so it is a major project. <br /> <br />When Flaming Gorge was authorized in 1956, . no recreation or fish <br />and wild life benefits were included in its economic justification. Yet, <br />1.6 million visitor-days of use were recorded in 1967. . The Green <br />River below the dam was originally such a muddy stream that you <br />wouldn't want to drop a hook into it; and if you did, no fish could find <br />the bait. But now, as a result of the sediment fallout above the dam, <br />the Green River below the dam is a clear stream and one of the finest <br />trout-fishing streams in the West. People come from all over .the <br />West to fish this stream. <br /> <br />A major factor in properly evaluating project benefits is the present <br />difficulty in placing a dollar value. on so-called indirect or secondary <br />benefits, such as stabilization of income, creation of job opportunities, <br />provisions for economic flexibility, dispersal of population, resource <br />preservation, and the general economic and social well-being of the <br />people. <br /> <br />Better ways must be found to evaluate these benefits, to aid in the <br />decision-making process when new project proposals are before Congress. <br /> <br />I am very pleased that this group is looking at these standards. I quite <br />agree that a project, before we can build it, must meet some kind of an <br />economic cost-benefit test. But, we have got to look at the benefits in <br />a much broader approach. For example, we have been proposing that <br />agriculture can pay so much per acre foot for water. Beyond that, <br />water is priced out of the range for agriculture. And yet, we know that <br />the amount industry can pay for water is almost limitless and very <br />quickly on our higher-cost projects, of course, agriculture is priced <br />right out of the market. But the demand in this intermountain area for <br /> <br />i~r~~ <br /> <br />. -,._:;~-- .". <br />:r:.../-~~~ <br /> <br /> <br />