Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'. <br />. ........-_' - <br /> <br />- ".:_- <br /> <br />'" <br /> <br />over what concepts should guide the choice of the discount rate. <br />The arguments are technical and involved. Furthermore, they <br />persist to this day. progress has been made in eliminating <br />inappropriate concepts, but there is not yet a settled position <br />within the profession on an appropriate concept. professional <br /> <br />opinion ranges from as low as 0% (uncommon) to well above 10%. <br /> <br />Two recent texts in natural resource economics suggest discount <br /> <br />rates of 6% (Randall, 1981) and 6 3/8% (Howe, 1979).' <br /> <br />Because of this range of expert opinion, the Colorado Water <br />Conservation Board has elected to require sensitivity analyses at <br />5% and 10%, as a part of its current water resource development <br /> <br />project evaluations, while requiring that the principal analysis <br /> <br /> <br />be performed using a discount rate of 7 1/2%. <br /> <br />REFERENCES CITED <br /> <br />Howe, Charles W. <br />and Policy. <br /> <br />Natural Resourcp Economics - Issues. Analysis. <br />New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1979. <br /> <br />Randall, Alan. Resource Economics - An Economic Aporoach to <br />Natural Resourcp and Environmental policy. Columbus, Ohio: <br />Grid Publishing, Inc., 1981. <br /> <br />3 <br />