ABSTRACT:Most of us are aware, or feel we are aware, of the impacts of major water resources projects on our lives. “Dam‐lovers” note the life‐saving flood‐risk reduction and recreational benefits of a proposed reservoir, while “dam‐haters” bemoan the future drowning out of the wildlife habitat of its river valley, and the recreational disbenefits to stream (as opposed to lake) fishermen. Water supply projects can often be given such a revered status, assuming the “obvious” tenet that water, air, food, and shelter are basic requirements of decent living, that the economic viability of the project may not even be assessed. Water resources planners are supposed to impartially weigh the environmental and economic benefits, and especially now, the energy implications of all proposed water projects, but many times the partial views of political or public advocates may be hard to ignore. The assumptions used in the planning of four recent water projects in the Province of Alberta will be presented and some revisions suggested which materially affect their Benefit/Cost ratios. In one project that is still in the public hearing stage, the economic analysis will be revealed, indicating that the original B/C ratio of about 1.6:1 might be more realistically placed at 0.6:1. In another project just completed, the apparent lack of an economic or energy analysis that has resulted in a perpetual and unnecessary energy load on the province
展开▼
