Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> <br />. <br />" <br />v <br />j <br />t~ <br />, <br />v <br />I <br />f <br /> <br />,.j <br />:~:. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />t1. <br /> <br />3942 <br /> <br />LETTER FROM THE BUREAU OF THE BUDGET <br /> <br />EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, <br />BUREAU OF THE BOllGl<'1'. <br />Wllshi-ngton, D.O., A.fari!h 4, 1960. <br /> <br />The :Honorable the SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. <br />My DEAR MR. SECRETARY: This will acknowledge your letter of <br />Febrnary 25, ]%0, transmitting your report on a plan of de\'e]op- <br />ment for Ruedi Dam and Reservoir. <br />Yonr report proposes Ruedi Dam as a substitute for Aspen, whicl, <br />was originally proposed as a feature of t.he Fryingpan-Arkansas <br />project. The Ruedi Dnm is estimnted to cost $]2,83],000, of whicl1 <br />$7,GOO.000 would be a]Joeated to the Fryingplln-Arkansas project ,md <br />$5,231,000 is considered ehargenble to wesj"ern-slope nses. <br />1\. is noted that, 11lt.hough there are no specific co81s required for <br />re.alization of the. fish arid wildlife bcnefits 'lnt.icipated from the <br />project., $],757,800 is a.lIoeated to fish and wildlife. The Bureau of <br />the Budget considers that only additional project costs rtlquired for <br />realization of lisl1 and wildlife benefits should be allocated to this <br />purpose. 'Illis is the method employed in the '''port. for allocation <br />of costs to recreation, and it is bel!e\'ed to be equally applicable to fish <br />and wildlife costs. <br />Your report. proposes to lllloeate coSts among project purposes based <br />on a 100-year perio(l of analysis. The Bm'ean of the Bud~et. has long <br />considered that proposed water fPSOUrCe.8 development projeds should <br />be evaluated wit.hin their expected economic life, hut not beyond 50 <br />years from the time project benefits becomo a.va.UaLle. Wlule the <br />physic"l life of many projects will undoubtedly exceed 50 yea.rs. an <br />assumption 01 economic. Ii fe he~von<1 f)O years is highly specula.tive, <br />particula.r1y if the mte of recent tedmological advance is projeded <br />into t.lw. fut.ure. In this case t.he use of " 100-,""n-l" pel~od of "nal,sis <br />fE-snIts in n. sib".uficfint. reduction in reimbursable costs. ~ <br />It. would appear t.hat. nn a.ppropriate adjnstment in the cost a.lloca- <br />tion, using fL 50-year period of analysis and no nJIocfltion to fish and <br />wildlife, would produce nn nlIocnt.iou to deferred storage for munici- <br />pa.l RTH} industrwl water of somew}Hlt. in exce.<;s (~f 30 percent or the <br />cost of the project. This would be inconsistent WIth the terms of t.he <br />Water Supply Act. of 10.58. which limit.s to 30 percent. t.he allocation <br />to dden'ed w'a.ter ~u.pply storage.. ~'.'belie\"ed t.hat t.his fact should <br />be ea.lIe.d to t.l,e ~tt6rttion of t.he Con~ . . <br />It is understood t.hat vour report. s t.he result of a re<'--Onna.iSS:lllee <br />SUfl'ey ra.ther than a project. invE'-st.ig-a.t.ion find that t.he co::t estimates <br />are, tl-lCrefore., of a more \\m.11'1ttry chn.racrer tha.D- is lIsnal for re- <br />,po.; . to t}lE~ COllgTess w .h Sorve as a basis forf':"Oje_ct a.llt.horjza- <br />. ... It lS considered ,..,.fore, tJlat., in the 0.\"0. :'j'he Fr)"IIIgpan- <br /> <br />. v <br />. . <br />