10 MULTIPLE PURPOSE RIVER DEVELOPMENT 



by its charter, nor equipped by its organizational structure, to 

 undertake a development task which would be sufficiently compre- 

 hensive to serve the residents in territories other than the one for 

 which its charter was granted. No well-defined channels of com- 

 munication, nor machinery for reaching and executing decisions, 

 existed through which local groups, individuals, or communities 

 could rccich agreement and act upon it. Second, and perhaps 

 equally significant, much of the benefit from the development of 

 such water supplies would be freely available to both private and 

 public groups unless the agency entrusted with the development 

 enjoyed the coercive powers of government to levy assessments 

 against the beneficiaries. Unless such powers were available, or 

 machinery existed for transfer of income from general tax revenues 

 to defray developmental expenses, development probably would 

 not be financially feasible. 



The advantages of the private corporate structure in reaching 

 and implementing decisions would be largely irrelevant, principally 

 for the second of the two reasons just mentioned. The feasibility 

 of the private undertaking would depend on the ability to control 

 access to its services — that is, to make enjoyment of the benefits 

 from any private undertaking contingent on payment of some price. 

 No privately organized venture intending to remain solvent could 

 undertake the integrated development foreseen for the basin with- 

 out concluding agreements in advance with potential beneficiaries 

 to obtain compensation for the developmental costs. Since many 

 of these beneficiaries would not materialize until further settlement 

 occurred following development, the bargaining position of the 

 developer would be hopelessly compromised. (There are other 

 basic difficulties, but their demonstration will be part of the larger 

 effort to which the study is addressed.) 



The features of the developmental programs outlined for Grand 

 Basin, of course, are not representative of every river basin in the 

 country. But neither are they unique. A number of the funda- 

 mental problems involving efficiency that are implied in our hypo- 

 thetical example will recur in much the same forms wherever 

 multiple purpose development is involved. And where the solution 

 of problems in the most efficient manner will require the interven- 

 tion of a public body, the issues of equity as well as efficiency in 

 the use of public funds — or in the distribution of program benefits 

 — will reappear as equally vital considerations. 



