WSPC05202 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OG2483 is misleading and needs to be changed. The statement in the following paragraph, i.e., tIr, third paragraph on Page 55, is also very misleading. It i.s stated, "the benefit-cost ratio employed in Federal wat ':r project evaluation is determined by comparing such benefits an] cost. This criteria provides an overall measure of the extent to which a given alternative will enhance or detract from .the nation's output of marketed goods and services of all kinds." This statement implies that broad comprehensive benefit cost analysis has been made by the authors. This is not the case, as indicated in Table 16. At the bottom of Page 55 several references are made to Table 15. However, Table 15 is only a list and provides no explanation whatsoever of the evaluation criteria for water resource development alternatives. The second paragraph on Page 57 disousses monetary estimates related to flood control benefits, but does not state whether or not these monetary benefits have been incorporated into cost estimates or the net economic benefits considered in the report. The following paragraph discusses water quality, and fish and wildlife, but does not say how these were treated in the analysis. The discussion of net energy changes on Page 57 is confusing, and the reader is left with uncertainty regarding how net energy changes are considered. The final statement, "the energy requirements for construction and operation of a given alternative, as well as economic activity generated by the alternative, would be presented as increased needs for electrioity and petroleum products." It is very unolear what this statement means with respect to application of net energy changes to specific projects. . The scope and methods of the economic analysis need to be reviewed thoroughly by the Advisory Committee. It would appear that additional research is needed into the cost and benefits associated with agricultural, municipal and industrial water, and some additional research is needed to insure that all cost estimates for these various uses of water projects, i.e., municipal, industrial, agricultural water supplies and hydroelectric generation, are on the same basis and comparable among projects. In general, we believe that the methodology grossly understates the benefits and value of all storage projects in the South Platte Basin by understating the value of water and by ignoring successive use of water. While adjustments may not effect the final ranking of alternatives, statements of benefits would provide the public wi.th a better understanding of the value of these projects. 5