Laserfiche WebLink
<br />"The real problem facing all who propose public works projects <br />is more than just gaining public support for specific pro- <br />grams. It is the necessity to develop these programs many <br />years in advance of their construction while facing the <br />threat that legislation enacted near the end of the process <br />will be literally and retroactively applied to the entire <br />planning cycle." <br /> <br />One could also argue that this is the major source of the migraine headaches <br /> <br />planners are beginning to develop. Mr. Moe suggests that one of the key <br /> <br />elements in bringing about a revised concept is that the value system of <br /> <br />the past is rapidly changing. Under the proposed planning concept. the <br /> <br />possibilities for the future would (hopefully) have been considered choice <br /> <br />dependent, This should increase the likelyhood that plans will be in tune <br /> <br />with public values. <br /> <br />Plillmi ng Goals <br />While a number of higher level goals have been competing for prominence <br />as focal points in the planning process. the recently published Principles <br />and Procedures for Planning Water and Related Land Resource Projects (9) <br />reiterates that the major goals for federal level planning are those of <br />(1) national economic development (economic efficiency from the national <br />point of view) and (2) environmental quality. It further specifies that one <br /> <br />must determine an optimuni design based on economic efficiency and an alter- <br /> <br />native design bused on environmental quality, It further requires that <br /> <br />in general the benefit cost ratio for a recolTh'llended project must exceed 1. <br />I n other \'iords. the broad thrust in p 1 anni ng is for conti nued economi ca lly <br />efficient use of natural resources while observing the broader contribu- <br />tions that these facilities make to public well being and environmental <br />quality. <br /> <br />lG <br />