OCR Text |
Show 52 BUDGET BUREAU CIRCULAR A-47 AND POWER PARTNERSHIP (/) Unprevented and uncompensated losses of or damages to fish and wildlife resources; recreation resources; and scenic, archeological, or historical values. (g) Abandonment of economically useful structures, such as locks and bridges. Such an evaluation shall also include an appraisal of other detriments to the general welfare, whether or not they can be measured in monetary terms, and the groups which will suffer any substantial injury should be identified so far as feasible. 10. Comparison of benefits and economic costs Benefits to be obtained and economic costs to be incurred throughout the assumed economic life of a program or project, as limited by paragraph 14 of this circular, where expressed in monetary terms, shall be converted to a common-time basis to facilitate the comparison called for in paragraph 7 (a) (2). Where benefits and economic costs are compared on an annual basis, interest on the construction costs should be included in the computation of average annual equivalents for total economic costs. Where the present net worth method of comparing benefits and economic costs is to be used, future benefits and economic costs should be discounted to present values. Using an interest rate to cumulate benefits and economic costs is necessitated where the net gain or loss at any given time during the operation of the program or project is to be computed. Determination of the applicable interest or discount rate shall be made in accordance with paragraph 15, except for the interest rate on project costs to be financed by non-Federal sources. 11. Purposes to which, costs may be allocated and criteria for allocation of costs The evaluation report prepared in accordance with paragraph 7 shall include a tentative allocation of the construction costs and operation and maintenance costs of the program or project to the several purposes to be served, which allocation shall serve as the basis for the proposed reimbursement and cost-sharing arrangements recommended in the report. Proposals for the allocation of costs will be reviewed in accordance with the following standards: (a) Sv bj )ct to the criteria set forth in paragraphs (b) and (c) following and paragraphs 19 and 20, costs of both separable and joint facilities shall be equitably allocated to the following purposes and to no other purposes: (1) Flood control. (2) Reclamation. (3) Navigation. (4) Watershed management. (5) Electric power and energy. (6) Domestic, municipal, or industrial water supply. (7) Recreation development. (8) Fish and wildlife development. (9) Pollution control or abatement. (6) Costs of programs or projects shall be allocated to the several purposes for which they are undertaken on the following basis: (1) The costs of facilities or features of a program or project used only for a single purpose of water-resource development shall be allocated to the respective purposes served by such facilities or features. (2) The costs of facilities or features of a program or project used jointly by more than one purpose of water-resource development shall be allocated among the purposes served in such a way that each purpose will share equitably in the savings resulting from combining the purposes in a multiple-purpose development. (c) Allocations of costs to items (8) and (9) of paragraph (a) above shall be governed by the following: (1) Allocations of costs to fish and wildlife shall be limited to the following: (A) Costs incurred for the development of fish and wildlife to the extent that such costs are to be borne by States, local governments, or local interests. (B) The increment of additional costs of a project incurred for fish and wildlife development if the fish and wildlife resources to be developed are determined by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with present law to be of national significance, and if either (a) the work is proposed to be authorized as a part of a national fish and wildlife program and financed under appropriations made for that purpose, or (6) the letter transmitting the proposed report to the Congress contains proposed authorizing language stating the maximum amount of such costs which would be borne by the Federal Government. (2) Allocations of costs to pollution control or abatement shall be limited to those costs for that purpose which are to be fully reimbursed by the States, local governments, districts, or other interests concerned, including other Federal establishments. |
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] : |