Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. ~ <br />03~v <br /> <br />viewpoint of both Denver recreation consumers and from the <br /> <br />viewpoint of the communities of Sterling, Brush and Fort <br /> <br />Morgan on a number of social grounds. There do not appear <br /> <br />to be any major differences reported on water supply considera- <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />tions, except that the Weldon Valley would benefit from darn <br /> <br />location at the Hardin site by not having to terminate those <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />communities. <br /> <br />The decision making process in this social assessment <br /> <br />was really two-fold. First, it was necessary to determine <br /> <br />whether on balance it was desirable to have a water development <br /> <br />project of the type in question. Second, if this was the case, <br /> <br />then it had to be decided where such a project should, based <br /> <br />upon social considerations, be located. On the basis of the <br /> <br />findings presented herein, the following conclusions are <br /> <br />drawn: <br /> <br />I. From a social impact perspective a project should be <br />constructed. <br /> <br />2. Of the two alternatives (Narrows versus Hardin) the <br />Narrows site is preferable <br /> <br />There appear to be a great many social costs associated <br /> <br />with having no project at all, and few if any social benefits. <br /> <br />Based solely on direct social impacts the Hardin site would <br /> <br />appear on the face of it to be the more desirable due to the <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />smaller population which would be displaced. However, there are <br /> <br />significant social costs generated by such a decision which go <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />far beyond the question of residents displaced and many of <br /> <br />these social costs and benefits are spelled out in the report. <br /> <br />4 <br />