channel improvement project has the higher B–C ratio is irrelevant; both options
are acceptable because their B–C ratios are greater than one.
Several interesting facts may be noted concerning this study. First, there was
no attempt to allocate the cost of the projects between flood control and power
production. Second, very large portions of the flood-control benefits were shown to
be in connection with the Mississippi River and are not indicated in Table 10-2; these
were not detailed in the main body of the report but were shown in an appendix.
Only a moderate decrease in the value of these benefits would have changed
the B–C ratio considerably. Third, without the combination of flood-control and
power-generation objectives, neither project would have been economical for either
purpose. These facts point to the advantages of multiple purposes for making flood control
projects economically feasible and to the necessity for careful enumeration
and evaluation of the prospective benefits of a public-sector project.