286 



MULTIPLE PURPOSE RIVER DEVELOPMENT 



Glacier View Reservoir, 157n 



Goldsmith, S. F., 102n, 103n, 11 In 



Gorgas, Alabama, 176 



Grand Coulee Dam, 61 



Grant County, Oregon, 258n 



gravity-flow irrigation, 56 



Great Lakes Carbon Corporation, 249, 



252-53 

 Green Peter Dam, proposed, 205 

 ground water tables, 56 

 group wants. See absolute group 



wants; collective wants 

 Gulf of Mexico, 172 

 Gulf Power Company, 175 

 Guthrie, J. A., 58n 



headwater benefits. See under storage 

 Heady. E. O., 106n 

 Heller, W., 112n 



Hells Canyon, development of: and 

 Alabama-Coosa river system, com- 

 parison and summary of problems, 

 268-71; amortization schedule for, 

 148, 167; Corps of Engineers 

 (main control) plan, 139, Table, 

 140; expert witnesses, examination 

 of, 181n; federal (High Dam) plan, 

 provisions, 139-40; Idaho Power 

 Company (three-dam) plan, pro- 

 visions, 136, 137-39, 140-41, Fig., 

 138; an integrated (two-dam) plan, 

 149-52; power potential of, 61; un- 

 compensated gains under two- or 

 three-dam plan, 141, 141n, 153; 

 assuming federal development: 

 amortization period, 167; 

 at-site generation. Tables, 146, 150; 

 benefits from High- and three-dam 

 plans, compared, 144-46, 148n, 

 Table, 146; 

 benefits from High- and two-dam 



plans, compared, 151-52; 

 benefits from two-dam plan. Table, 



150; 

 benefits and costs of two- and 

 three-dam plans, compared, 152; 

 costs, annual, of High- and three- 

 dam plans, compared, 142-43, 

 Tables, 144, 149; 

 costs, annual, of two-dam plan, 



Table, 151; 

 costs, construction, under alterna- 

 tive plans, 143; 



Hells Canyon, cont. 

 assuming federal development, cont. 

 differences in scale of alternative 



plans, 149; 

 efficiency of High- vs. three-dam 



plans, 147-48, 149, 154; 

 efficiency of High- vs. two-dam 



plans, 152, 154; 

 incremental benefit-cost ratio, 146- 



47, 148n, 151, 152n; 

 interest rate used in analysis, 167; 

 power output, measurement of, 



144-45; 

 prime power output for High and 



three low dams, compared, 145- 



46, 147n-148n; 

 prime power output for two-dam 



plan, 150n, 152n, Table, 150; 

 recreational potential for High 



Dam, 148; 

 assuming Idaho Power Company de- 

 velopment: 

 amortization period, 167; 

 analysis of two- and three-dam 



plans, 152-58; 

 at-site generation, 156; 

 benefits of two- and three-dam 



plans, compared, 157-59, Table, 



158; 

 costs, annual, for three- and two- 

 dam plans, compared, 153, 157, 



Table, 154; 

 efficiency, of two- and three-dam 



plans, compared, 152, 156, 159- 



60; 

 interest rate used in analysis, 167; 

 investment decisions, factors in, 



153-57; 

 kilowatt rates, determination of, 



155; 

 market under franchise, 155-56; 

 and maximization of output, 157- 



58; 

 power generation from two-dam 



plan, 157; 

 primary power, sacrifices of under 



three-dam system, 159; 

 profitable scale of development, 



restrictions on, 156; 

 socially less efficient plan, selection 



of, 152, 156, 160; 

 transmission facilities, 156; 



