OCR Text |
Show 50 BUDGET BUREAU CIRCULAR A-47 AND POWER PARTNERSHIP be expressed in ranges rather than in single figures. The estimate should be made from an overall public or national viewpoint and should indicate any specifically identifiable groups, localities, or districts receiving program or project benefits. While it is recognized that a comparison of estimated benefits with estimated costs does not necessarily provide a precise measure of the absolute merits of any particular program or project, one essential criterion in justifying any program or project will, except in unusual cases where adequate justification is presented, be that its estimated benefits to whomsoever they may accrue exceed its estimated costs. Inclusion in a multiple-purpose program or project plan of any purpose of resource development will, except in unusual cases where adequate justification is presented, be considered only if the benefits attributable to that particular purpose are greater than the economic costs of including that purpose in the program or project. Monetary computations will be most useful in arranging programs or projects, or parts thereof, serving the same purpose in the order of their economic desirability. (3) All data relating to the financial feasibility and to the allocation and reimbursement of financial costs prepared in accordance with the standards set forth in paragraphs 11-21. This shall include a statement as to the financial feasibility of reimbursable features of the program or project and the net effect of the program or project on the Federal Treasury. For this purpose the project report shall show an analysis of the sources of repayment or sharing of the financial costs of each of the purposes involved in the program or project. Financial costs shall be converted to an annual basis to make possible a comparison of annual financial costs and annual revenues of any program or project or separable purpose thereof. (4) A statement as to the source and nature of, and an appraisal of the adequacy of, the basic information available and used during the preparation of such program or project and the methods employed in the analysis and interpretation of such basic information. (b) Requests for funds for the initiation of construction of a program or project following authorization shall be accompanied by a statement indicating the changes which have occurred, if any, since submittal of the original report upon which authorization was based, affecting the total cost, the economic evaluation, or the purposes of the program or project. If substantial changes have occurred, the request shall be accompanied by a revised evaluation report. 8. Benefits to be included in evaluation The evaluation report prepared in accordance with paragraph 7 shall include an estimate of the primary benefits of the program or project. Unless the report sets forth clear justification for considering other factors, main reliance in the review of project reports will be placed on the following categories of primary benefits: (a) Reduction of flood damage, including damage from water and sediment, to land and other public and private property; and prevention of loss of life. (b) Increases in the expected net income obtained directly from changed use of the property made possible by any form of flood control. (c) Increases in expected net income from lands on which watershed treatment measures are to be installed as part of the program or project. (d) Increase in expected net farm income from additional production or reduced cost of production of farm products as a result of reclamation of land. (e) In the case of navigation projects other than harbor improvements, the transportation savings resulting from-- (1) The differential between expected costs of movement by nonwater transport and expected costs of movement by water transport for those commodities which will be carried by land transport if the project is not built, but which will move by water if the project is built. (2) For traffic which will not move without the waterway improvement, but which will move by water if the project is built, the differential between the cost of transportation by waterway and the highest cost at which it would be feasible for the traffic to move. (3) Where the project improves an already navigable waterway, the differential between expected costs with and without the project of moving on the waterway, traffic expected to move on the waterway even if the project is not built. (/) Direct benefits of shore protection. (g) Direct benefits from harbor improvements, including those for small boat traffic. |
Source |
Original book: [State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California, defendants, United States of America, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, interveners] : |