BOARD00198 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I MR. STAPLETON: I MR. KROEGER: this discount rate is allowed to stand with- out some revision of the method of figuring benefits. We think it is a very short-sighted policy. The Water Resources Council itself is aware of the problem and hopes that enough action will be taken so that the benefit method now used can be significantly revised. We feel that if it is revised properly, then the new discount rate will not pose any unusual problem. It's a one-sided action at this time. On Monday our Deputy Director, Mr. Kuiper, appeared in Washington before the Water Resources Council and gave a prepared statement which was sent to you in which we protested this action. We think it is advis- able that this Board adopt a resolution in the general terms of what we have sent out to you and that that resolution then be forwarded to the Water Resources Council and to the members of our congressional delegation. That's a very short explanation of the problem. " "You have seen the resolution which is on the back of Agenda Item #4 and without going into the 'Whereases', the guts of it is on the bottom of page 2, 'Now, Therefore Be It Resolved by the Colorado Water Con- servation Board . . . . that the National Water Resources Council be requested to revise the present method of evaluating benefits to specifically include regional, state and local interests in addition to the national interest: to better recognize economic and social factors; to quantify primary and secondary tangible benefits for inclusion in the benefit-cost ratio calcu~ lation: and to recognize intangible benefits more fully in the project evaluation: . . .'. That's the basis of the resolution." "Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption of the resolution."