Laserfiche WebLink
<br />CARL H. BRONN <br /> <br />(a) Equity proposes that the worth of water projects-toward National objectives-be <br />valued just as in other Federal programs funded for like or similar objectives. <br />(b) This also means that economic efficiency, market values, willingness to pay, alleged <br />adverse effects on other regions, all would be used for water projects only as in other <br />Pederal investments-like water quality, open space, or mass transport, <br /> <br />Now, with the schoolwork out of our way, let's ask the questions- <br /> <br />Question No, 1 - Is there a list of specific waste treatment projects to be constructed by the $1 <br />billion? <br />Answer - Not a list like water projects-each named in the Appropriations bill, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Question No.2 - Is the engineering for waste treatment at such a stage that contracts for the <br />$1 billion can be let this year? <br />Answer - Probably not, since the list of projects may not be firm until months from now, <br /> <br />Question No, 3 - of the likely projects, how many have a B/C ratio greater than 1.1? <br />Answer - None, <br /> <br />Question No.4 - What rate of interest was used to discount future benefits from the $1 billion? <br />Answer - None, <br /> <br />Question No, 5 - Then how are the benefits to be computed? <br />Answer - Computed% They are presumed, not computed! <br /> <br />Pinal Question - Are you shocked? <br />Advice - Don't be-it's the system. And please don't be thinking I am downgrading the water <br />quality program, nor decrying the 460% rise, My purpose is to compare formulation and <br />evaluation procedures-not to make judgments, <br /> <br />In this, I have omitted basketsful of questions everybody asks about water development, that <br />nobody asks about waste treatment. But, are not these two water programs sufficiently allied-suffi, <br />ciently dependent in both the direct sense and also as regards National objectives-that formulation <br />and evaluation should be more nearly equitable than our dialogue indicates? <br /> <br />You have a lingering doubt? Then let's test the principles of (a) dependency, (b) National <br />objectives, and (c) equity, using another device. <br /> <br />Let's "borrow" 10% of that jump of $786 million, Let's theoretically apply the $79 million <br />to Reclamation construction authorized but unfunded, Compare the documented estimate of water <br />development benefits with a guess about prospective benefits from the tail-end 10% of waste treat, <br />ment, theoretically deferred. <br /> <br />POl' example, Utah needs $3 million more-beyond the rise voted by the Senate-for the <br />Bonneville water project to which is tied the welfare of 60% of its people. But Utah gets $3 million <br />more-in the Public Works Bill-for waste treatment. Would the sum of NationaL regional. and local <br />benefits be greater by shifting the $3 million increment from waste treatment to water development? <br /> <br />I am not criticizing either waste treatment or the tcchni(]uc of formulating. evaluating. authori- <br />zing, and appropriating for water quality. But the questions raised here llWY suggest that the <br /> <br />-13- <br />