My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC06111
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
17000-17999
>
WSPC06111
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/29/2009 10:21:32 AM
Creation date
10/9/2006 5:42:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.700
Description
Colorado River-Colorado River Basin-Colorado River Basin General Publications
State
CO
Date
1/1/3000
Title
Colorado River Documents and Major Events-Sparks Synopsis-July 1976-Issue Area No 1-Revision of Water Resource Planning and Evaluation Criteria and Procedures
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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 />-2- <br /> <br />Although this paper focuses on the Pl'ind,ples and Standards, it <br /> <br />should be noted that they arc still in the early stages of implementation. <br /> <br />Several of the problems addressed in this paper originated with programs <br /> <br />and projects which either were developed under earlier rules or are not <br /> <br />included within the present scope of coverage of the PSS. The planning <br /> <br />process is also affected by specific Congressional actions, such as the <br /> <br />legislation which amended the P&S to fix the discount rate formula for <br /> <br />computation of future project benefits, and the legislation which establislied <br /> <br />the project deauthorization review procedures for inactive projects of <br /> <br />the Corps of Engineers. <br /> <br />The purpose of this paper is to present a summary of the major <br /> <br />problems associated with Federal water resource planning and to suggest <br /> <br />a number of options for solving or reducing these problems. Other <br /> <br />problems, such as more realistic recreation values, incentives to encollra~e <br /> <br />local solut'Olns to local problems, and establishment of instream flow <br /> <br />criteria are not specifically included 'at this time. lIowe:ver, suggestions <br /> <br />for additions or revisions are welcomed. <br /> <br />The problems and options are grouped into three issue categories: <br /> <br />Goals and Objectives, Planning and Evaluation Procedures, and Administration <br /> <br />of the Planning Process. Some options listed under problem statements <br /> <br />.f <br /> <br />are mutually exclusive alternatives and others are not. The "status <br /> <br />quo" and "further study" options are viable for each problem, They have <br /> <br />been omitted only to simplify the paper. Additional research and analysis <br /> <br />may be required in order to implement some of the options that are <br /> <br />listed. <br /> <br />:-.. :~- ;.~ ~, <br />..,J " <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.