Laserfiche WebLink
<br />"'" <br />"'" <br />00 <br /> <br />~~"'l> <br />:-:,iJ <br />James Monaghan <br />January 17, 1977 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />It is high time that every state, in weighing decisions <br />on federally subsidized projects, consider seriously that its <br />decisions, when multiplied by fifty, can add up to enormous waste, <br />bloated tax burdens, and a general and well-justified malaise on <br />the part of a citizenry which is asked to pay too much and receives <br />too little from its government. I don't argue here against subsidy, <br />for it is a valuable tool, but against the subsidy of inefficiency, <br />which really amounts to paying people to destroy real resources. <br /> <br />5. The argl~ent that we should commit all of our Colorado <br />River Compact entitlement to consumptive use immediately, to fore- <br />stall a grab by the lower basin states, is absurdly narrow and <br />distorted. First, our legal entitlement does not hinge on putting <br />it to use; it has not been challenged over the several recent years <br />during which the lower basin states have used more than their <br />entitlements. Second, the argument forces us into the position of <br />wastefully using a scarce resOUrce which can be more economically <br />used, on a temporary basis, by others. Even worse, we become <br />accqmplices in the destruction of one of the.world's greatest <br />fisheries (the Gulf of California), whose maintenance depends upon <br />the inflow of fresh water from the Colorado River to the brackish <br />nUrsery area of the Colorado delta. Third, and most absurd of all, <br />any Colorado water we don't consume maintains a valuable aquatic <br />environment through both Colorado and Utah before it can possibly <br />be diverted by thirsty lower basin interests. Should we foul our <br />own nest with unproductive irrigation projects simply to prevent <br />Southern California or Arizona from using more COlorado River water? <br /> <br />6. Setting aside these general considerations, Savery-Pothook <br />is an abominable project on almost all counts, and by failing to <br />recognize this I believe that we have misled the public and delivered <br />one more blow to the credibility of our political institutions. <br />Let me enumerate: <br /> <br />(1) The project is grossly inefficient. A sound economic <br />analysis would reveal that the true benefit-cost ratio is <br />probably on the order of 0.33 to 1. In other words, the tax- <br />payers are spending a dollar to produce 33 cents in benefits; <br />the other 67 cents is thrown away. <br /> <br />(2) The project is a flagrant subsidy to a very few <br />individuals. One hundred ranchers would be benefited, at a <br />cost which approaches $100 million. That amounts to $1,000,000 <br />per ranch. Of course the ranchers themselves receive benefits <br />of only about $20,000 per year per ranch, due to the gross <br /> <br />,. <br />, <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />~; '1 <br />