My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP00913
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
WSP00913
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:28:27 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 10:01:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8272.600.60
Description
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program - Basin Member State Info - Utah
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
3/7/1975
Title
Colorado Regional Assessment Study - Phase One Report for the National Commission on Water Quality - Part 2 of 2 -- Chapter VI - end
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
288
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 />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />~ <br />o <br />-] <br />...... <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />the desirable amount of abatement. We can, however, <br />conjecture with confidence that more abatement is desir- <br />able than is provided by existing controls. Therefore, <br />our present ignorance of benefits and costs should not be <br />used as an excuse for doing nothing. I would place great <br />emphasis on doing the appropriate research as part of any <br />control scheme. A well-designed scheme will provide in- <br />formation (e. g., on the costs of a variety of control de- <br />vices) that is relevant to the benefit-cost calculations. <br /> <br />Means of Control <br /> <br />We are not in a position to evaluate a, variety of schemes <br />that are in use or have been proposed to control or abate <br />air pollution. It will be useful to classify methods of con- <br />trol according to the categories employed by Kneese in his <br />disculilsion of water pollution: <br /> <br />1. [Legal Constraints]. In this category, I include <br />l:icenses, permits, compulsory standards, zoning, regis- <br />tration, and equity litigation. <br />2. Payments. In this category 1 include not only di- <br />rect payments or subsidies, but also reductions in collec- <br />tions that would otherwise be made. Examples are subsidi- <br />zation of particular control devices, forgiveness of local <br />property taxes on pollution-control equipment, accelerated <br />depreciation on control equipment, payments for decreases <br />in the discharge of pOllutants, and tax credits for invest- <br />ment in control equipment. <br />3. Charges. This category includes schedules of <br />charges or fees for the discharge of different amounts of <br />specified pollutants and excise or other taxes on specific <br />sources of pollution (such as coal). <br /> <br />My objection to [legal] regulation should be clear by <br />now. It is too rigid and inflexible, and loses the advantages <br />of decentralized decision-making. For example, a rule that <br />factories limit their discharges of pollutants to certain levels <br />would be less desirable than a system of effluent fees that <br />achieved the same overall reduction in pollution, in that the <br />latter would permit each firm to make the adjustment to the <br />extent and in the manner that best suited its own situation. <br />[Legal] restrictions are usually cumbersome to administer <br />[particularly when diffuse sources are involved - Ed.], and <br />rarely achieve more than the grossest form of control. In <br />spite of the fact that almost all of our present control <br /> <br />33 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.