WSP05061 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r' . . 18 I.- I . 3. Municipal and irxJ.ustrial benefits. The usual approach in the U.S. is to use the cost of the alternative project that presumably would be built in the abseIx;e of the current project as a measure of benefits. Given the cx:nplex- ity of M&I benefits, this seans a reasonable procedure when it is responsibly and oooservatively carried out. '!be necessary ccntition for =ect use of alternative cost is that the alternative project definitely will be built in the absence of the current project. In the past, M&I benefits have been counted in this way when it was not clear that the 'tams even need'!!d IICre water. In one case, the najor town openly announced they did not need IIDre water, but M&I benefits were still oounted. In the A-IJ? case, the najor town and iIXlustrial area to be served is Durango, Colorado. ' \'bile Duran:JO surely will need additional water within the next decade, there exist a nmiJer of alternative sources that appear IICre cost effective than the alternative prqlOSed for benefit IOOasurenent. As noted earlier, the single-purpose nature of the prtp)sed alternative ani the use of a higher discount rate serve to boost the purported benefits relative to costs. 4. Ilecreaticn benefits. Recreational analysis related to water projects ranains at an elementary level in the U.S. '!be A-IJ? is no exception. TI.u reser- voirs will provide fishing cg;xxtunities, but at a substantial cost to current cpen stream fishing ani white-water boating. While it is difficult to say whether or not the projected reservoir recreation rates are reasonable, one can say that the metOOds of analysis - crnparison with existing reservoirs on the basis of acreage ani shoreline - are too sillple. It also appears that the costs associated with foregone white-water recreation are severely understated because these are very unique recreational cg;xxtunities.