My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP03857
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
3001-4000
>
WSP03857
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/29/2009 10:36:10 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:01:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8030
Description
Section "D" General Correspondence - Other Organizations/Agencies (Alpha, not Basin Related)
State
CO
Date
3/16/1972
Author
Fred G. Simonton
Title
Statement of Mid-West Electric Consumers Association
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.
/
12
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 />-4:. <br /> <br />We have no quarrel with economic evaluations if Federal <br />decision makers understand that the economic evaluations are <br />onc of many tools that can and should be utilized to determine <br />the public programs that will go forward and the 'level at <br />which they should be financed. <br /> <br />Speaking for our Association, former Assistant Secretary <br />of. Interior Ken Holum discussed economic evaluation of water <br />resource projects at a hearing conducted by the Water Resource <br />Council in Omaha, Nebraska, August 14, 1969. To refresh your <br />memory, we want to make that entire statement a part of this <br />record and we wish to call particular attention to one state- <br />ment: <br /> <br />"We must understand, before we even begin the <br />calculations, that it is possible, and in fact <br />quite likely, that projects with marginally <br />favorable or even unfavorable benefit cost ratios <br />are meritorious from the standpoint of the total <br />national good. The total good includes social <br />effects such as employment, more equitable income, <br />gains for all groups, community stability, small <br />business opportunity, and improved prospects for <br />orderly growth among all basins, regions, and <br />states." <br /> <br />Frankly, we consider the Council's approach to resource <br />related decision making quite unsophisticated. Apparently <br />you wish to rely on complicated and imprecise economic eval- <br />uations because you have been unable to develop more appropriate <br />guidelines for policy development and decision making. You <br />require economic evaluations because you lack confidence in <br />your ability to identify .the public good without artificial <br />measuring devices. Your economic guidelines apparently are <br />developed as a substitute for good judgment and public interest <br />evaluation on the part of individuals who are supposed to be <br />deciston makers. . <br />( <br /> <br />With all of your short-falls you look good, however, when <br />compared to the thirteen organizations that have circulated a <br />so-called "Citizens Alert" which says in part: <br /> <br />"A high discount rate will make economic evaluations <br />more realistic and will eliminate many destructive <br />water projects which are economically unsound." <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.