WSP11547 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

15 16 ~ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 1 the figures that I have been able to gather from othe~ attendees 2 a~ this hearing is, the projected cost at this point in time, 3 somewhere between seventy and eighty million dollars. Now, as 4 I'm Bure everybody here is aware, 'projected coste usually resembl~ I, I I I I 5 actual costs about as closely as zebras resemble giraffes. and 6 I would expeot a fifty to one hundred percent cost overrun on 7 this project. Now, by the process of arithmetic, that works out 8 to be approximately eight thousand dollars an acre for the land I I that would be irrigated by this project instead of even the four i I thousand dollars that was mentioned. I don't kn~1 what land is I , worth eight thousand dollars an acre in this p",rt' of the country,/ I but it. Seems to me to be rather useless. You're pi'lying eight. 9 10 11 12 13 thousand dollars an acre to irrigClte land that topographically and geologically is marginal in its crop raising capacity when,1 I at the same time, money is being spent to alleviate ~roplems of I surplus food elsewhere in the country in l",nd that, is inherently I , , , ,I I more productive without ,the investment of eight thousand dollars i I an acre. It seems to me that it would be much bettr"r economics, I i , ! even though it would not save the money that the ~r~cksiecks 14 17 18 have mentioned, merely pay the 56 l~nd ~~~rs involv~d a million and a half dollars apiece ~s a direct subsidy rather. than an indirect subsidy of roughly the same amount. That would result in a significant environmental damage. Now, the environmental di'lmllga I'll get to later.. nut I think there are SO!rle important points that ought, to be rccmphanizec'l. (lne is the j,QSS ot power