198 MULTIPLE PURPOSE RIVER DEVELOPMENT 



the Corps of Engineers and (2) requirements of Section 5 of Public 

 Law 436. 



Finally, the record does not make clear the anticipated amount 

 of public benefits to be provided, what they will cost, and who is 

 ultimately going to bear these costs. If Alabama Power Company 

 is required to provide flood control storage in an amount and 

 effectiveness called for by Section 5 of Public Law 436, it has two 

 conceivable ways of recouping its costs from such privately unprofit- 

 able undertakings. On the one hand, Alabama Power Company 

 may be compensated in the future by the federal government, 

 through the Treasury or another of its agents, for costs incurred 

 in the provision of public benefits. This possibility is already 

 apparent in the legislation. Another, and perhaps independent, 

 possibility exists in the proposal by Alabama Power Company to 

 trade flood control benefits for headwater benefits provided by the 

 federal upstream project. There is nothing in the record, however, 

 which would permit one to determine if this were appropriate 

 compensation, too little, or too much. On the other hand, if it 

 should never become the policy of the Congress to provide for 

 compensation in connection with the provision of public benefits 

 by Alabama Power Company, the burden of these costs will be 

 shifted to the power consumers in the company's system. Recouping 

 of costs by resort to the federal Treasury would be consistent with 

 practices throughout the remainder of the country, and with our 

 efficiency criteria. But only by coincidence or by a theoretical 

 special case would the recouping of investment outlays for public 

 benefits from trading benefits or by shifting the burden to the 

 electricity consumers be consistent with our efficiency criteria. 



