OCR Text |
Show will be made. Water programs have generally suffered during periods of war and defense activity. Comparing water expenditures to gross na- tional product, the prewar high was 0.39 per- cent in 1936. For 1950 and pre-Korean War estimates for 1951, this percentage was higher than for any preceding year in the table. In other words, before the Korean War, we planned to devote a higher percentage of our gross na- tional product than ever before to water develop- ment, although the percentage of total Federal expenditure was lower. Expressed as a percentage of gross private domestic investment, Federal water resources ex- penditures were higher in the middle and late thirties, when Federal investment was coming to the rescue of private investment, than they were in later years. The gross private domestic in- vestment is the most volatile major component in the gross national product; it has been strongly argued that when private investment falls off, public investment should take its place. Hence a comparison between these two figures is of sub- stantial interest, even though comparison would probably be more valuable if there were a longer period of years over which to observe the rela- tionship. The Cost of Resources Improvement It is impossible, in advance of the planning and programing described above, to state what a resources investment program would cost. The Nation has never had such a program, or such a budget. It has never had a comprehensive policy for the conservation and development of re- sources. Certain parts of the problem have been assigned to different agencies, but it has not been possible, under existing allocations of authority, to develop comprehensive cost estimates. However, from some studies and estimates by private and public sources, it would appear that an adequate conservation and development pro- gram for renewable resources over the next gen- eration might cost the Nation in the neighborhood of 100 billion dollars. Table 4 shows two sets of estimates of future water resources expenditures, as originally pre- pared and as converted to 1950 prices. An esti- mate published by the Twentieth Century Fund, based on 1940 prices, totaled 42.3 billion dollars. A 1948 estimate by the Army Engineers totaled 57.5 billion dollars. Revised to take into account increases in construction costs, these estimates total 84.6 and 70.2 billion dollars, respectively. TABLE 4.-Estimates of future water resources expenditures Source: Column 1> America's Needs and Resources. Twentieth Cen- tury Fund, New York, 1947. Column 2 computed on the basis of a doubling of relevant costs since 1940, when the original figures were col- lected. Column 3, speech of Representative A. F. Miller, Congressional Record, Aug. 8,1948. Column 4 computed, assuming a 22-percent ad- vance in costs, according to records of Army Engineers. A report entitled "Natural Resources Activity of the Federal Government," issued by the Legis- lative Reference Service of the Library of Con- gress, states that if all river basins were given the same intensive treatment as those most fully developed in the Army Engineers' plans, the cost of the program would be about double the Engi- neers' 1948 figure, or 115 billion dollars. This figure emphasizes one serious shortcoming of the Engineers' estimate shown in table 4. It is sharply limited geographically, and leaves many sections of the country almost entirely out of consideration. The Legislative Reference Service figure, on the other hand, is not shown in any detail, so that it is impossible to estimate how the expendi- 93 Twentieth Cen- »__,» -c^.^^^^ tury Fund Army Ens^e61* 1OA7 1950 re- iaAa 1950 re-m7 vision m8 vision Flood control____..............- 3.0 6.0 12.3 15.0 Navigation.....................- 2.0 4.0 6.2 7.6 Hydro power.................... 12.0 24.0 24.0 29.3 Irrigation........................ 6.3 12.6 8.7 10.6 Drainage___________.........-....._______.....- .4 .5 Watershed management.....___ 5.5 11.0 4.0 4.9 Pollution........................ 6.5 13.0 1.4 1.7 Forest conservation.............. 3.9 7.8.................. Fish and wildlife preservation-..................... .5 .6 Recreation....................... 3.1 6.2.................. Total...................... 42.3 84.6 57.5 70.2 |