<mods xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3" version="3.3" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-3.xsd" ID="P0b002ee1803a505f">
<name type="corporate">
 <namePart>United States Government Publishing Office</namePart>
 <role>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">publisher</roleTerm>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="code">pbl</roleTerm>
</role>
 <role>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">distributor</roleTerm>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="code">dst</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="corporate">
 <namePart>United States</namePart>
 <namePart>Government Accountability Office</namePart>
 <namePart>Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division</namePart>
 <role>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="code">aut</roleTerm>
</role>
 <description>Government Organization</description>
</name>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<genre authority="marcgt">government publication</genre>
<language>
 <languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm>
</language>
<extension>
 <collectionCode>GAOREPORTS</collectionCode>
 <category>Legislative Agency Publications</category>
 <waisDatabaseName>gao</waisDatabaseName>
 <branch>legislative</branch>
 <dateIngested>2010-08-12</dateIngested>
</extension>
<originInfo>
 <publisher>U.S. Government Printing Office</publisher>
 <dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">1999-05-28</dateIssued>
 <issuance>monographic</issuance>
</originInfo>
<physicalDescription>
 <note type="source content type">deposited</note>
 <digitalOrigin>born digital</digitalOrigin>
 <extent>33 p.</extent>
</physicalDescription>
<classification authority="sudocs">GA 1.13:RCED-99-115</classification>
<identifier type="uri">https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-RCED-99-115</identifier>
<identifier type="local">P0b002ee1803a505f</identifier>
<identifier type="former package identifier">f:rc99115</identifier>
<recordInfo>
 <recordContentSource authority="marcorg">DGPO</recordContentSource>
 <recordCreationDate encoding="w3cdtf">2010-08-12</recordCreationDate>
 <recordChangeDate encoding="w3cdtf">2011-03-28</recordChangeDate>
 <recordIdentifier source="DGPO">GAOREPORTS-RCED-99-115</recordIdentifier>
 <recordOrigin>machine generated</recordOrigin>
 <languageOfCataloging>
  <languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm>
</languageOfCataloging>
</recordInfo>
<accessCondition type="GPO scope determination">fdlp</accessCondition>
<extension>
 <docClass>REPORT</docClass>
 <accessId>GAOREPORTS-RCED-99-115</accessId>
 <reportNumber>RCED-99-115</reportNumber>
 <subject>Potable water</subject>
 <subject>Rural economic development</subject>
 <subject>Water supply management</subject>
 <subject>Regional development programs</subject>
 <subject>Water resources development</subject>
 <subject>Economic analysis</subject>
 <subject>Economically depressed areas</subject>
 <subject>Federal aid programs</subject>
 <identifier>Lewis and Clark Rural Water Project (IA/MN/SD)</identifier>
 <identifier>South Dakota</identifier>
 <identifier>Iowa</identifier>
 <identifier>Minnesota</identifier>
 <identifier>Drinking Water State Revolving Fund</identifier>
 <type>Letter Report</type>
 <seriesAbbrev>RCED</seriesAbbrev>
 <law congress="104" isPrivate="false" number="182"></law>
</extension>
<titleInfo>
 <title>Rural Water Projects: Identifying the Benefits of the</title>
</titleInfo>
<abstract>Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the
benefits of constructing the Lewis and Clark Rural Water Project,
focusing on: (1) what benefits could derive from the Lewis and Clark
project; (2) who could receive these benefits; and (3) how these
benefits are valued.

GAO noted that: (1) the potential benefits from the Lewis and Clark
project generally fall into three categories: (a) societal benefits; (b)
economic benefits; and (c) fiscal benefits; (2) local water users such
as households and businesses would be the major beneficiaries of the
Lewis and Clark project; (3) they would benefit from lower water-related
expenditures and costs as well as higher income because of increases in
local economic activity and transfers of economic activity into the
Lewis and Clark service area from outside the region; (4) these
transfers could include moving slaughterhouses or food processing plants
from other states or counties; (5) concerning fiscal benefits, local and
state governments would be the principal recipients of any net increases
in sales and income tax revenues that would result from increases in
economic activity; (6) counties and school districts could benefit if
there were increases in taxes; (7) conversely, the federal government
would realize little fiscal benefit from the Lewis and Clark project;
(8) however, the federal government could realize nonfinancial benefits
by making progress toward the objectives of improving the lifestyle of
rural residents, investing in the development of the infrastructure of
rural America, and ensuring compliance with federal drinking water
standards; (9) the benefits from municipal and industrial water projects
are difficult to value; (10) at the national level, there would be
little change in net economic activity, but transfers of economic
activity into the Lewis and Clark service area could result in increased
regional economic activity; (11) for a given water district, the cost of
its reasonable alternative to constructing a particular water project,
such as drilling additional water wells or replacing a water treatment
plant, can produce an approximation of the value of the project&apos;s
economic benefits so long as the alternative yields the same quantity
and quality of water; (12) for the water districts that would be served
by the Lewis and Clark project, GAO estimated that the sum of the
alternative costs that would be avoided if the Lewis and Clark project
was built to be between about $71 million and $81 million in 1998
dollars; and (13) these figures should be considered the minimum value
of the economic benefits to the area served because few of the
alternatives would produce the same quality of water as the Lewis and
Clark project and because two of the water districts in the area that
have reasonable alternatives to the project did not estimate the cost of
their alternatives.</abstract>
<location>
 <url displayLabel="HTML rendition" access="raw object">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-RCED-99-115/html/GAOREPORTS-RCED-99-115.htm</url>
 <url displayLabel="PDF rendition" access="raw object">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-RCED-99-115/pdf/GAOREPORTS-RCED-99-115.pdf</url>
</location>
<identifier type="preferred citation">GAO/RCED-99-115</identifier>
<location>
 <url displayLabel="Content Detail" access="object in context">https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-RCED-99-115</url>
</location>
<note>Letter Report</note>
<extension>
 <searchTitle>GAO/RCED-99-115; Rural Water Projects: Identifying the Benefits of the;
            </searchTitle>
</extension>
<subject>
 <topic>Potable water</topic>
 <topic>Rural economic development</topic>
 <topic>Water supply management</topic>
 <topic>Regional development programs</topic>
 <topic>Water resources development</topic>
 <topic>Economic analysis</topic>
 <topic>Economically depressed areas</topic>
 <topic>Federal aid programs</topic>
 <topic>Lewis and Clark Rural Water Project (IA/MN/SD)</topic>
 <topic>South Dakota</topic>
 <topic>Iowa</topic>
 <topic>Minnesota</topic>
 <topic>Drinking Water State Revolving Fund</topic>
</subject>
<relatedItem type="isReferencedBy">
 <titleInfo>
  <title>United States Public Law 182 (104th Congress)</title>
</titleInfo>
 <identifier type="public law citation">Public Law 104-182</identifier>
</relatedItem>
</mods>