My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD04820
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
4001-5000
>
FLOOD04820
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 6:47:23 PM
Creation date
10/5/2006 1:04:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Statewide
Basin
Statewide
Title
Evaluation and Implementation of Urban Drainage and Flood Control Projects Completion Report
Date
6/1/1974
Prepared By
CSU Environmental Resources Center,
Floodplain - Doc Type
Educational/Technical/Reference Information
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
141
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />The selection of the set of account6 does not rule out the use of <br /> <br /> <br />Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA). Actually, the use of the WRC procedure is <br /> <br /> <br />a 60~ 06 BeA in that total benefits and costs are displayed, broken <br /> <br /> <br />into categories rather than aggregated together. <br /> <br /> <br />Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) actually began as a tool for the <br /> <br /> <br />economic evaluation of water resources projects, mandated by the Flood <br /> <br /> <br />Control Act of 1936. Since that period, a large critical literature <br /> <br /> <br />of BCA has arisen and a number of shortcomings have been identified. <br /> <br /> <br />An excellent review of BCA has recently been published by Prest and <br /> <br /> <br />Turvey [17] while the books by Howe [12] and James and Lee [14] demon- <br /> <br /> <br />strated its applicability to water resources problems. BCA really only <br /> <br /> <br />addresses economic efficiency in its original form, going back to the <br /> <br /> <br />1936 Act where it was required that project benefits exceed cost regard- <br /> <br /> <br />less of who they accrued to. Now that decisionmakers are more concerned <br /> <br /> <br />about environment, about equity and about social objectives, the direct <br /> <br /> <br />use of BCA is more limited but by using techniques such as the WRC <br /> <br /> <br />account6, BCA can be extended. Benefit-cost analysis can be a ".,.po- <br /> <br /> <br />tentia11y valuable contribution to decisionmaking in the public sector," <br /> <br /> <br />but that "...the results of (BCA) should not be believed merely because <br /> <br /> <br />they come from an ana1ysis...Benefit-Cost Analysis does not guarantee <br /> <br /> <br />good answers. At its best, it should provide logical ground rules for <br /> <br /> <br />constructive debate on the real issues." [8]. <br /> <br />Minor and Major Drainage Systems <br /> <br /> <br />Considering the control of runoff quantity only and using Jone's <br /> <br /> <br />terminology of mino4 and maj04 systems [15], the difference between the <br /> <br /> <br />two systems can be shown in a definitive fashion. Consider a typical <br /> <br /> <br />small urban catchment where drainage is basically tributary to a local <br /> <br />25 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.