| OCR Text |
Show 6. Issue #4 Effect of Alteration, as Purposes are Changed, of Cost Calculations- Economic Feasibility and Cost/ Benfit ratio- On Which the Bonneville Unit was Authorized Question 1. If the Bonneville Unit was authorized on the basis of Economic Feasibility and Cost/Benefit ratio presented on the planning to Congress at the time of authorization, and these calculations would be changed as planning and purpose change, to what extent and at what point does this constitute a need for re-authorization? Related Issues Salt Lake County Representatives plan to meet with the Bureau by February 1st, to discuss Bureau cooperation in working out with the State, non-structural water management programs emanating from 208 Water Quality Studies required for complaince with the Clean Water Act. Some of the funding requested in the Bureau budget for construction purposes will not be required as non-structural management replaces these projects. Subsequent to the release in July, 1978, of an "Economic Analysis of the Bonneville Unit, CUP" by Professor Thomas Power, Department of Economics, University of Montana, which raised significant questions about the validity of the Bureau economic calculations on feasibility and cost/benefit ratio*, our CRCUP group prepared a cost questionnaire on this Unit. Our purpose was to ascertain whether the Bureau was including cost information we considered essential as costs of federally developed water. We believe our questions are economically sound and viable information for a public being taxed for a from one to possibly three billion dollar water project from which most of this public being taxed will receive no benefits. We forwarded this questionnaire with the Professor Power Economic Analysis, a Utah State University Project Acceleration Cost Analysis, and „ reports on alternatives for State water management in September to Secretary Andrus requesting written answers. Despite .repeated overtures, we have still not been provided written answers by the Bureau. The Bureau Regional Director, Nelson Plummer, proposes that CRCUP meet in Salt Lake City for an explanation of Bureau calculation methods. He explains that the Agency has not generated answers to quesitons we ask and gives reasons why it will be difficult and costly to provide us written answers. Two weeks ago, Fred Reimherr and I, Co- Chairmen of CRCUP, were supplied with a 150 page packet of fiscal year 1979 Project Data Sheets (Form PF-65) and the * for ewuj •*! *huix ewt^.31 K> *~ A^M^A |
