OCR Text |
Show swimming or fishing, or picnic while looking out over clean water to the setting sun or the rising moon. In general, he would decide that it is probably worth an annual investment of so many million dollars a year for the next 50 years to get so many advantages out of the river which has been a substantial liability. But he will want a body with no special axe to grind to vouch for the facts, and to present them simply enough for him to understand. It is in terms of something like this thinking that the Commission approaches its recommenda- tions for the evaluation of water and land re- sources projects. RECOMMENDATIONS The Commission is convinced that the measurement of direct benefits and costs in dollars is a basically useful tool in program eval- uation and project selection, but that it must be supplemented by other measures if sound deci- sions are to be reached in the public interest. Definite account must be taken of the contribu- tions which each project may make to the na- tional income. A careful effort must be made to assign some value to those public benefits and costs which affect the general welfare. Decisions to undertake water resources pro- grams are of the same nature as family decisions on how much, of their limited funds they are will- ing to invest In a given improvement. Such na- tional decisions require as complete and as pre- cise information as can be assembled. No effort should be spared to present the facts in clear, accurate, and quantitative form. In the end, a judgment must be reached by the people through their elected representatives as to whether or not the proposed expenditure is worth the cost. That judgment becomes a matter of collective common sense which should be based on the dollars-and-cents estimates, but which must transcend them in order to give due weight to intangibles. The Commission accordingly recommends that Congress direct the Executive Departments in the future to evaluate and report on proposed water projects in the following manner: 1. All Federal agencies cooperating in pre- paring plans affecting the use and control of water resources should evaluate the proposed pro- grams and projects according to a uniform meth- od which would result in a standard form of "investment appraisal statement" for each pro- gram or project within that program. This would supersede the diverse and conflicting directives under which the agencies are now operating. 2. The investment appraisal statement should be a concise but complete estimate of the antic- ipated cost to the American people of under- taking any project and of the anticipated re- sults. Insofar as practicable, it should be in monetary terms, but where such numerical esti- mates of either costs or benefits cannot reasonably be determined, an effort should be made to state in some concrete fashion the relative significance of the benefit or cost. 3. The investment appraisal statement should contain an estimate of the following costs: A. The initial investment in: (1) Preliminary investigation, survey, and plans. (2) Construction. (3) Land acquisition, rights-of-way, and utility replacement. (4) Administration and overhead. (5) Use of the money. B. The annual costs of: (1) Operation and maintenance. (2) Administration and overhead. (3) Insurance. (4) Payments in lieu of State and local taxes. (5) Interest, depreciation, amortization, and risk allowance. (6) Increased expenditure for previously existing services in the area. C. The indirect costs resulting from: (1) Displacement of population. (2) Loss of land and minerals. D. Detriments to the general welfare: (1) Loss of fish and wildlife. (2) Loss of scenic, recreational, or historical values. 64 |