OCR Text |
Show Inadequacies in Methods of Estimating and Allocating Benefits and Costs, and Assignments of Responsibility for Repayment In the past, methods of estimating and allo- cating benefits and costs in the Columbia Basin generally have been consistent with standard prac- tices of each agency throughout the Nation. Ex- ceptions occur only where some characteristic pe- culiar to the Columbia Basin should be considered. Whatever inadequacies there are, therefore, stem directly from the national situation. Some indi- cation of shortcomings is evident from considera- tion of the uneven assignment of repayment burdens, and uneven distribution of benefits. Where possible, it would seem just to distribute the costs of a water resources development in pro- portion to the benefits received. For practical rea- sons, if for no others, an ideal cost distribution is very difficult to attain. Within the Columbia Basin numerous differences in the assignment of repay- ment burdens exist. Benefits from irrigation accrue to farmers who use the water, and they are expected to make re- payment of costs at least within their ability. It is recognized that there are also considerable benefits to the local nonfarm population, such benefits at times exceeding those to the water users. Repay- ment for these secondary benefits, however, has not been required, except that under the earlier policy of selling power from irrigation projects on the basis of what the traffic would bear, nonfarm consumers of power made considerable indirect contributions to repayment of the project cost. In some cases it is as easy to identify those who receive direct benefits from flood control as those who directly benefit from irrigation facilities, but in accord -with existing national policy, flood con- trol beneficiaries are not generally required to bear any Federal costs except those for strictly local fa- cilities. It should be noted that the amount and distribution of the benefits would be difficult to establish to the satisfaction of each of the benefici- aries of flood control improvements, as well as of irrigation. Likewise, direct beneficiaries of navigation im- provements could be charged in proportion to their use of the facilities, but, in accordance with long- established congressional policy,8 no part of the capital costs of navigation improvement are so charged, nor are tolls collected. Direct benefits from fish and wildlife develop- ments and recreation developments are more dif- ficult to identify. However, those who use such facilities are direct beneficiaries and, though they are sometimes charged for maintenance costs, they are not assigned responsibility for capital costs of construction. Like irrigation development costs, all power de- velopment costs are reimbursable, but users pay in proportion to their use. They do not assume a con- tract obligation to pay off part or all of the con- struction costs, as is required of irrigation water users, nor do they eventually gain ownership of the facilities. A few differences in repayment burdens at dif- ferent; government levels may be noted. Locally benefited flood control and irrigation districts are expected to maintain the improvements after they have been installed, in contrast to navigation or main stem reservoir flood control installations. In the contributions to local flood control, agricultural beneficiaries often have assumed much larger shares of levee costs than have urban areas. One set of costs for which reimbursement pro- cedures have been established but which have not proved entirely satisfactory in the Columbia are those connected with the relocation of roads in- undated by reservoir construction. The theory is that roads so inundated will be replaced in kind on higher ground and the cost of replacement will be considered a project cost. This procedure is reasonably satisfactory if there are no justified plans for improvement of the road which have been deferred because of the known necessity for relo- cation, if no further expansion of road traffic takes place, or no special new needs arise from reservoir construction. However, if one of the latter circum- stances prevails, replacement in kind does not meet the situation satisfactorily because the costs of the improvements in the new locations will be sub- stantially higher than similar improvements would have cost without the reservoir. These problems are particularly noticeable in mountain districts, where many of the contemplated Columbia Basin * In theory the ultimate consumer of goods hauled by water is the beneficiary of navigation improvements. Some transportation savings can be passed on to him. Free use of waterways is justified on this basis. In prac- tice, however, benefits may or may not be passed on to the ultimate consumer. 34 |