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 />-5- <br /> <br />The Mid-West Electric Consumers Association doesn't want <br />"destructive projects" built regardless of their economic <br />attractiveness. By the same token, we don't want imprecise <br />economic evaluations to stop the country from meeting its <br />social, economic and environmental obligations. <br /> <br />We urge you to remember that the criteria used for making <br />economic evaluations is much more important than the discount <br />rates applied to future benefits. <br /> <br />Discounting future benefits from land and water projects <br />at a 7% rate is certain 'to result in benefit cost-ratios below <br />unity for most projects in the thinly populated areas of the <br />country. <br /> <br />We would expect the same result with respect to most public <br />activities if they were to be evaluated on a basis similar to <br />the criteria for water resource projects that we are discussing <br />here today. This, of course, is the reason these activities <br />are conducted by public agencies and not by the private, profit- <br />motivated sector of the economy. <br /> <br />Should we abandon Rural Free Delivery because the benefit- <br />cost is better in New York City? Should we discontinue mail <br />service to small mid-western towns because the service does not <br />produce economic benefits comparable to the yields that might <br />be expected if we invested our tax dollars in steel mills? <br /> <br />The Association maintains its office in Denver, Colorado. <br />Does the Council propose an economic evaluation to determine <br />the merits of maintaining Rocky Mountain National Park as com- <br />pared with logging' its forests and mining its minerals? Of <br />course you don't, and neither do we. <br /> <br />We applaud the new emphasis on urban parks and Federal <br />recreation areas close to big cities. We see no need whatsoever <br />to apply economic evaluations to programs designed to make whole- <br />some, outdoor recreation available to the urban poor. <br /> <br />The thirteen organizations sponsoring "Citizens Alert" <br />demand that beneficiaries pay a greater share of the projects' <br />costs. We wonder how they propose to have the beneficiaries <br />of Federal fish hatcheries, wild rivers and national parks and <br />recreation areas reimburse the Treasury for these splendid <br />public activities. Will they install toll gates at Federally <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.