No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Use of Economic Analysis in the Tennessee Valley Authority: The Case of the Duck River Project
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 April 2015
Extract
In September, 1968 the Tennessee Valley Authority recommended construction of two dams on the Duck River in middle Tennessee. Subsequently, an environmental impact statement (EIS) was prepared which further described the plan and provided a summary of the national economic efficiency justification for its implementaion. Table 1 summarizes the EIS justification. However, the accuracy of the EIS analysis may be subject to question. This paper evaluates the sensitivity of the EIS national economic analysis to changes in expansion benefit estimates, reconsideration of cost estimates and their use, and the discount rate used for analysis. Also discussed is the consideration given to alternatives to the Duck River Project, and institutional limitations on the TVA's mission that affect the use of economic analysis.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1973
References
[1]Allee, David J., “Place of Water Resources Planning in Economic Regional Development,” in Fresh Water of New York State: Its Conservation and Use, ed. Hitchcock, L. B., Dubuque, Iowa, Wm. C. Brown Book Company, 1967, pp. 170–184.Google Scholar
[2]Banner, Gilbert, “Toward More Realistic Assumptions in Regional Economic Development,” in The Economic Impact of TVA, ed. Moore, John R., Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1967, pp. 121–144.Google Scholar
[3]Castle, Emery and Youmans, Russell, “Economics in Regional Water Research and Policy,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 50:1655–1665, Dec. 1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Garrison, Charles and Paulson, Albert, The Effect of Water Resources on Industrial Growth in the Tennessee Valley Region, Knoxville, University of Tennessee, Center for Business and Economic Research, July 1972.Google Scholar
[5]Howe, Charles, “Water Resources and Regional Economic Growth in the United States, 1950-1960,” Southern Economic Journal, 34, April, 1968, pp. 477–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]McKean, Roland, Efficiency in Government Through Systems Analysis, New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1958.Google Scholar
[7]Moore, Lewis F., Fort, John, Martin, Samuel, Table, Chaitram J., Zwaislak, Ron, Carrier, Ronald, Past Progress, Future Potential: An Economic Study of Maury County Tennessee, Columbia State University, March 1970.Google Scholar
[8]President's Water Resources Council, Policies, Standards, and Procedures in the Formulation, Evaluation and Review of Plans for Use and Development of Water and Land Resources, 87th Congress, 2nd Session, Senate Document 97, May 29, 1962.Google Scholar
[9]Rivkin/Carson, Inc., Population Growth in Communities in Relation to Water Resources Policy, National Water Commission Contract NWC 71-016, Oct. 1971.Google Scholar
[10]Shabman, Leonard, Decision Making in Water Resource Investment and the Potential of Multi-Objective Planning: The Case of the Army Corps of Engineers, Technical Report 43, Ithaca, New York, Cornell University Water Resources Center, July 1972.Google Scholar
[11]Statutes at Large, XLIX, 1076-1076, as quoted in Wilmon H. Droze, High Dams-Slack Waters, Baton Rouge, Louisiana State University Press, 1965, p. 32.Google Scholar
[12]Technical Committee of the Water Resources Centers of the Thirteen Western States, Water Resources Planning and Social Goals: Conceptualization Toward a New Methodology, Utah Water Research Laboratory Publication, PRWG - 94-1, Logan, Utah, Sept. 1971.Google Scholar
[13] Tennessee Valley Authority, Final Environment Statement, TVA-OHES-EIS-72-5, Knoxville, April 28, 1972.Google Scholar
[14] Tennessee Valley Authority, “Facts About Major TVA Dams and Stream Plants,” Knoxville, 1970.Google Scholar
[15] Tennessee Valley Authority, The Duck River Project: Normandy and Columbia Reservoirs, Planning Report No. 65-100-1, Knoxville, Sept. 1968.Google Scholar
[16] Tennessee Valley Authority, “Length of Streams in the Tennessee River Basin,” Knoxville.Google Scholar
[17] Tennessee Valley Authority, Upper Duck River Development, A Cooperative Plan for Economic Growth, Knoxville, Sept. 1968.Google Scholar
[18] Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970, (P.L. 91-646).Google Scholar
[19]U.S. Congress, House, Subcommittee on Public Works, Committee on Appropriations, “Hearings: Public Works for Water and Power Development and Atomic Energy Commission Appropriation Bill, 1972,” part 5, 92nd Congress, 1st Session, 1971, p. 1142.Google Scholar
[20]U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1969 Census of Agriculture: Tennessee, June 1972.Google Scholar
[21]U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Business Economics, as presented in “The Input-Output Structure of the United States Economy,” a table prepared for Scientific American, 1970.Google Scholar
[22]U.S. Congress, Joint Economic Committee, The Planning-Programming Budgeting System: Progress and Potentials, Hearings, 90th Congress, 1st Session, 1967 Interest Rate Guidelines for Federal Decision Making, Hearing, 90th Congress, 2nd Session, 1968; Economic Analysis of Public Investment Decisions: Interest Rate Policy and Discounting Analysis, Hearings, and Print, same title, 90th Congress, 2nd Session, 1968.Google Scholar
[23]Water Resources Council, “Plan Formulation Standards and Procedures: Discount Rate,” Federal Register, Dec. 24, 1968.Google Scholar
[24]Water Resources Council, “Proposed Principles and Standards for Planning Water and Related Land Resources: Notice of Public Review and Hearing,” Federal Register, Dec. 21, 1971.Google Scholar
[25]Wilson, Charles and Martin, Joe, An Interindustry Analysis of the Tennessee Economy Emphasizing Agriculture, Knoxville, University of Tennessee Agriculture Experiment Station, Jan. 1971.Google Scholar