Laserfiche WebLink
<br />;, -:,.j. ,,.., <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />effects that.appear as. positive or negative in one category may appear in others <br /><IS well. The evaluation of a proposed program may be expressed in terms that <br />sum .or provide a ratio fOf the positive and negative ctrect.s in each objective <br />category, but the sele~.tiqn of a course of action f!'Om t.\mong. s~veral alterna- <br />tives entails at least an .implicit weighting of the several objectives. <br />The National Acaden~y of Sciences" haS'Stated that: . <br />If the public .aims that lie behind the irrigation, power and ftood~ontrol <br />enterprise... iothe Colorado Basin arc ~icamilied with care,.itbccomes:up- <br />parent that most of ~hem m,,-y be included in five main classes: (1) na- <br />tional econoiniC efficiency; (2) income redistribution; (3) political <br />equity; (4) controlling the natural environment; and (5) pceservat.ion <br />and aesthetics. <br /> <br />These. aims as categorized for the Colorado Rivc.r Basin are generally consist~t <br />with the proposed natibnal objectives. The implications of this.is, that \VaSA <br />as a component of water resources development will be viewed in terms of sev- <br />eral different aims and objectives by th~~e who answer to the national interest <br />and by those whose interests are more' do.sely related to the Colorado River <br />Basin. Furthermore, different interest groups will a~ign different degrees of <br />importance to thediffcrent.pbjectivcs. <br />The discussion of the impacts of an operational WOSAsystem .was not <br />specifically organiZed to corrcspoIld to either of these listings of objectives; <br />however,. all of the categorieS have been cQvcr~ to Some extent. The discussion <br />of the effects of-WOSA is largely qualitative. Some of the effects cannot be <br />qU3Jltified; others are not sufficiently well understood to permit development <br />of quantitative-predictions; andin otbercas.e.'l the requited data wcre not avail. <br />able. Th~rcfor~,. although it would be desirable to surmmirize the results of the <br />assessment and obtain simple mcasure.<;of merit for the policy alternatives, a <br />grcater degree of.quant:tfication.is required than has been possible. Even if tilis <br />were possible, the basic problem is nor one of cat~gorii.ing and quantifying the <br />effects but as.i\igningrelativc weights to theSe cffcc.ts in t.he dedsion-malOng <br />process. This is the rol~ of pubikpolicy.. <br />The diSCUSSIon of alternative public policy strategies determined that tbe <br />minimum fed~ral interests in WOSA could be satisfied by an ind~pcndent Fed- <br />eral Wcathel:' Modification ~cgula~ory Board. If thi~ were established; severaL <br />altemative.~ appear feaSible for est~lblishing.:an operating authority for WOSA <br />within the. Upper Colorado River Basin. The l)rim.ary choice js between a fed- <br />eraland a nonfed~ralauthority. Authorizing legishiti6nwouldbc' required by <br />Congress for other than a federal operating. authority. <br />The choice or an operating authority is the basic decision.in establishing <br />an operrttionnl program. The choice of sitch an authority dctennint:s the range <br />of alternatives available for creating jns_titutions to respo'nd to the c.Ol1ccrns oJ <br />target are.a residents nnd to protect the area of origin against detrimental ef- <br />fects. Regardless of the.alternatives finally chosen, it.is.the b3Slc reconuncnda- <br /> <br />""Water -and Choice in IheColorildoB:~sin.n Ptiblication t6.89. National Academy of <br />Sciences, Wasllin'gton; D.C. (1968~. <br /> <br />(xx <br /> <br />, _.~~!"... <br /> <br />I <br />