The first report was conducted for the U.S. Treasury department and identifies 40 priority transportation and water infrastructure proposals in the U.S. The intent of the report is to create "a list of significant transportation and water infrastructure projects that have been proposed but face challenges to completion" and have high economic benefits relative to their costs. The high-profile tunnels project clearly hits all the screening criteria to have its benefits and costs evaluated for consideration for the list. The screening criteria are:
- significant (defined as >$300m)
- estimates of capital and operating costs, and a basis for estimating benefits
- completed a portion of environmental review
- could be at least partially completed within 10 years
- face a challenge to completion (technical, environmental, funding, etc.)
"The study team selected those projects for the final list which had significant net national or regional economic benefits based either on estimates of costs and benefits that had already been calculated using acceptable methods or on interim project outputs that could be converted to estimates of costs and benefits. Projects in the final list were chosen based on their net economic benefits... "
While I may have been the first, it is increasingly clear that I am not the only analyst to conclude that the WaterFix has a lousy benefit-cost ratio. By the way, three California projects did make the final list of 40 recommended projects: 1) CA High-Speed Rail, 2) MTC managed lanes (HOV, express lanes) throughout the Bay Area freeway network, and 3) Sutter Basin flood control improvements (note, this assessment was done prior to the Oroville crisis). Yes, it is true that high-speed rail has stronger economic justification than the Delta tunnels, although its financial viability is equally questionable. Bottom Line: WaterFix failed to make the cut in a list of major infrastructure projects evaluated on their economic merit, while HSR and HOV lanes made it.
The second notable recent assessment was done by consultants for the Trump transition team, and looks at project financing, most notably its revenue potential for private investors, rather than its overall economic benefits and cost. The WaterFix does make this list of 50 priority projects, but it is notable that the assessment finds that it needs a large taxpayer subsidy. The consultants estimate that user revenue is only sufficient to pay 50% of project costs, in sharp contrast to a decade of statements by the state and water contractors that they would pay 100% of the projects costs. As readers of this blog know, the WaterFix/BDCP/Tunnels have never issued a draft financial plan, and they suppressed their own economic consultants assessment that the project required a large taxpayer subsidy.
Here is a list of the 5 California projects that made the transition team list, along with their estimated construction cost and the % of these costs that could be paid by facility users.
- I-405 Improvements, $1.9 billion, 50%.
- Veterans Health Research Institute, $1 billion, 90%.
- Cadiz Water, $250 million, 100%.
- Huntington Beach Desal, $350mil, 100%.
- CA WaterFix (Bay Delta Tunnels), $15 billion, 50%.
It amazes me that anyone still believes public officials who say the tunnels can be built without substantial taxpayer funds. While it has taken a long time, the media and the public are slowly catching on. And now it appears that infrastructure consulting firms working for the federal government, who have a strong incentive to promote mega-infrastructure projects, recognize that the project can not be financed as claimed by project proponents and that the overall economic justification is lacking.
There is a more general observation about these lists that should be of interest to water wonks and policy makers. When it comes to water projects, the two lists recommend very different types of projects.
The Treasury list evaluates projects on economic merit, and flood control projects dominate the recommended projects. It's true around the U.S., not just California. However, the public good characteristics of flood control and constraints on accessing taxpayer funds makes flood control difficult to finance even when the economic merit is high.
In contrast, the Trump transition list evaluates projects on their revenue potential to attract private investment. Water supply projects like Desal, Cadiz, and WaterFix rank high on the list of projects with private investor potential even though they can't make the previous list based on overall economic merit. That's because water utilities have a lot of power to recover their investment costs from ratepayers, no matter how ill-advised those expenses may have been.
[This last section and a few general edits were added on 4/8.]
A nice dissection of what looks more and more like a corpse.ReplyDelete
TO THOSE WHO ARE NOT AWARE:ReplyDelete
Money is so taken advantage of and abused.
What is the economy utilized for?
The economic system serves as a system where people who work get paid according to their work amount, efforts and difficulty.
Do employees actually get paid according to how much they work?
How can you own a business make millions of dollars and pay your employees the bare minimum salary?
Yes, owning a business is a lot of work, but so is having a labor job, however, to keep all the wealth to yourself is so unethical most people probably don't even enjoy their job and only do it to survive.
Yes, I do believe no man should profit without working and that is exactly what I am addressing, the top 1% and other wealthy businesses or industries or companies or organization's profit way more than they labor in other words, they don't pay their fare share and the effect it has on society and the individuals they employ are harmful.
And keep in mind the political influence these mega corporations have on society and who they employ is so horrific the gay pride agenda to name one.
Now weather you agree with the gay agenda is not the topic of this writing the topic is the economic and societal breakdown that is happening as a result of industrial powers.
Imagine a successful business where most of its income goes back directly to the business and the employers instead of going into the pockets of a greedy business owner.
The employees would probably be paid way more than they are now, maybe in some cases 50$ an hour for flipping burgers or something.
I am not against success I am against greed, many of our problems can be traced back to greed like immoral and dangerous GMOs and vaccination dangers and countless other problems.
I don't believe it is ethical for a person to live in a mansion and only have an occasional 3 hour meeting as their job.
Simply because you took advantage of the economic system doesn't make your life more special than the 8$ and our employees that are slaves paying for your personal pursuits of pleasure.
I recognize it is not illegal to make millions of dollars growing GMO crops, paying the farms 8$ an hour or something low like that or owning Mc Donalds and doing the same however it is profoundly unethical and destructive.
Unfortunately, money = power, including political influence, the more money you have, the more magnified your potential to do good or bad with the money and the influence it brings to you.
Not everyone in America has equal power and influence, those at the top can fund whatever they want be the cause good or bad it is up to them to decide what to fund.
Utilize what you have for the greater good, we can't hold you accountable for what you can't do, however we could for what you can do.
This world is far from being fair and just that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it fair and just I do not advocate for stealing from the rich to give to the poor that is communism, I urge that the greed and abuse stops.
I patronize local business I believe they are more environmentally and economically friendly the gap between the business owners and the employees profit is less extreme.
I believe in the do it yourself independence model, I believe as technology and academic knowledge increases, we should be wise enough to produce our own necessities like energy, to collect our own water if possible, to grow our own food, to liberate ourselves from the corporate and government dependency that is installed by design to retain the population under their dominance and influence.
The less we rely on finances to make a living the less we are slaves at the mercy of those who moderate the flow of money like the wealthy who employ us to name one.
We need regulations that protect the people from the corporations, not the corporations from the people and their interests.
We must also have good interests for this idea to work.