Power development, total_. Thermal plants.... Hydro plants. Power systems. (Power development as percent of total investments, 6.3 percent.) 12, 121 3,757 6, 514 884 It is worthy of note that expenditures on waterpower stations in 1955 were 75 percent larger than on thermal stations, and that capital outlay on hydropower development amounted to 4 percent of all new investments in the national economy in the course of that year. A recent Soviet publication reports that the cost of construction and equipment of hydropower station in 1956 came to a figure of 8.4 billion rubles (5 percent of total investments for that year).28 The outlays reported above are presumed to cover all phases of river development, including irrigation and the improvement of facilities for navigation and fishing. Under present practice, the entire capital cost is borne by the electric power industry. This, in the opinion of one Soviet expert, is an undesirable arrangement, because the specifications for nonpower facilities, which in his calculation ranges between 23 and 45 percent of the total capital outlay on existing projects, are made by the respective economic agencies, who make extreme demands on the power industry, often without regard to the costs involved.29 One specific conclusion which emerges from reading the current Soviet literature on the subject is that the Soviet leadership is interested in the magnitude of the economic cost of the river development program to the extent of assessing this cost against the total needs of national power. They are not too concerned with determining its cost relative to thermal power. The veteran Soviet planner, G. M. Krzhizhanovski, a survivor of the small circle of planners who began their service under Lenin, is openly contemptuous of the calculating experts who weigh the pros and cons of hydroelectric development in terms of relative ruble costs only. These "shortsighted specialists," he complains, "are incapable of understanding the exceptional national economic and defense significance of our hydroelectric construction." 30 More generally, recent events in this sector of the Soviet economy suggest that the turning point in the direction of a more active approach to river development came within the current decade, prompted by an improved position in investment resources and an easier supply of equipment for modern, mechanized operations. It seems evident, furthermore, that the impetus for undertaking and sustaining this ambitious construction program comes primarily from the politically oriented leadership on the central planning level rather than from the technical experts concerned with the needs of industry for electric power. The latter still seem to find it difficult to shed "their conviction of some sort of special advantage possessed by the thermal stations over power dams."31 For the leadership, however, the grandiose river projects have the unique added attraction. of serving as concrete symbols of economic progress whereby the interest and hopes of the population could be engaged in support of the policies and objectives of the regime. 23 Yezhegodnik Bolshoi Sovetskoi Entsiklopedii, 1957, p. 50. 29 Nosov, op. cit., p. 20. 30 G. M. Krzhizhanovski, Electrichestvo No. 11, 1957, p. 5. 31 Zhimerin, op. cit., p. 5. SENATE COMMITTEES ON INTERIOR AND IN CONNECTION WITH S. Res. 148 of the 85th Congress FEBRUARY 10, 1958 Printed for the use of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and Committee on Public Works 21378 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1958 PURCHASED THROUGH DOC. EX. PROJECT HAM COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS JAMES E. MURRAY, Montana, Chairman CLINTON P. ANDERSON, New Mexico RICHARD L. NEUBERGER, Oregon GEORGE W. MALONE, Nevada THOMAS H. KUCHEL, California RICHARD L. CALLAGHAN, Chief Clerk MEMORANDUM OF TRANSMITTAL To: The members of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and the Committee on Public Works. From: The chairmen of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and the Committee on Public Works. Attached are copies of letters to executive agencies relating to the implementation of Senate Resolution 148 that was agreed to by the Senate on January 28. The resolution, as you will recall, is designed to improve procedures in connection with official comments of executive agencies in connection with reclamation, navigation, flood control, multiple-purpose watershed protection and any other public-works projects. You will note the suggestion to the agencies, including the Bureau of the Budget, that the procedures prescribed by Senate Resolution 148 may be presented in the form of supplements to project or legislative reports, which need not be redone or delayed. It is also made clear that the requests in Senate Resolution 148 avoid any impingement on the prerogative of the executive agencies with respect to their specific recommendations. Since Senate Resolution 148 reflects the will of the Senate only, the text of the measure is reproduced herewith as a committee print for the ready information of all concerned. Copies of the correspondence with the executive agencies are being furnished, as a matter of information, to the chairmen of the Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs, and on Public Works of the House of Representatives. We express our deep appreciation for the cooperation of our colleagues who aided so masterfully in presenting the objectives of Senate Resolution 148 to the Senate on January 27 and 28. It is our considered judgment that the improved procedures will materially aid both of our committees in the consideration of project authorizations. We commend to your attention and consideration the able affirmative explanations of Senate Resolution 148 made in the debate on the floor January 27 and 28 by Senators Anderson and Kerr, who held the hearings last summer, and Senators Case (South Dakota), Kuchel, Gore, O'Mahoney, and Morse. All of the Senators emphasized the value of the resolution to the Senate, and particularly to the committees in considering reclamation, Corps of Engineers, and other public works authorizing legislation. JAMES E. MURRAY, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. DENNIS CHAVEZ, Chairman, Committee on Public Works. TEXT OF SENATE RESOLUTION 148 The text of Senate Resolution 148, as agreed to by the Senate, is as follows: Whereas the sense of the Senate, stated in S. Res. 281, Eighty-fourth Congress, is that the Congress will continue to exercise its constitutional powers to encourage the comprehensive conservation, development, and utilization of the land and water resources of the Nation, and that reports to the Congress in support of authorization of such projects should (a) include evaluations made in accordance with criteria prescribed by the Congress, and (b) fully disclose the results of studies and analyses of the potential utilizations, costs, allocation, pay out, and benefits, both direct and indirect; and Whereas pursuant to said S. Res. 281, the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and the Committee on Public Works jointly have reported to the Senate that, in order to evaluate projects proposed for authorization, certain information is needed in addition to that regularly submitted by the executive branch in support of proposed projects, such information being related to selection of plans of development, costs, benefits, reimbursements, or contributions required of local interests; and Whereas such information is needed also for consideration by the Senate in connection with legislation to establish policies and criteria regarding allocations of project costs, and for evaluations of project benefits, which policies and criteria the Comptroller General of the United States, the Bureau of the Budget, and the Secretary of the Army have recommended should be established by the Congress; and Whereas the program for conservation, development, and utilization of the land and water resources of the Nation is impaired by delay in the delivery to the Congress of reports on projects proposed for authorization and for clearance pursuant to the provisions of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (68 Stat. 666, as amended): Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that procedures for evaluation of land and water resource projects should be improved, and that the agencies of the executive branch of the Government responsible for the preparation of reports relative to the authorization of land and water resource projects be, and are hereby, requested to furnish, in connection with such reports, the following information in addition to the data now presented in support of project authorizations: Information relative to alternative plans for the water resource projects that may reasonably be considered physically feasible of construction consistently with the advice of the Department of the Army, or the Department of the Interior, or the Department of Agriculture including enough of the information enumerated in subparagraphs (1) to (10) inclusive, to show why each alternative was dropped in favor of the recommended plan. With respect to the project recommended for authorization, the information should include, but not be limited to (1) Complete description of project, including an estimate of the economic life of the major project facility. (2) Estimated costs of construction, operation, maintenance, and replacement, together with a plain and succinct statement of the basis upon which all such estimates are made. (3) Benefit-cost ratios calculated by using total tangible benefits and total tangible costs for 100 years, and for 50 years, except where the economic life of the major project facility is less. (4) Description and, to the extent possible, computation or other evaluation of indirect and intangible net benefits including but not limited to (a) protection of life and property; (b) improvement of transportation; (c) conservation of water, soil, and forest resources; (d) wildlife conservation; (e) recreation; (f) abatement of pollution, including salinity; (g) control of sedimentation; (h) maintenance and enhancement of the agricultural, commercial, and industrial economy of the area affected. (5) Physical feasibility and costs of providing capacity in the project works for current needs and future uses that may reasonably be anticipated to develop during the useful life of such project works. (6) Allocations of costs, to be calculated (a) by at least three methods, namely, the separable costs-remaining benefits method, the priority-of-use method, and the incremental-cost method; and (b) on at least two time periods for amortization, namely, fifty years or the useful life of the facilities, whichever is the lesser, and one hundred years or the useful life of the facilities, whichever is the lesser. |