Clearly, the proposed design is different from the trend… but is it better? Some of the most important costs and benefits of the proposal as compared to the trend are shown in Table 2.

Some of the costs are not calculated in dollar amounts, but they are recognized as costs all the same. Politically, the design requires much more complex implementation and more exacting environmental management. For some landowners, there are opportunity costs in the areas that have been down-zoned. This may require compensatory measures.

Housing in the proposed design, which incorporates the guidelines, is generally more expensive than in the trend. On average, land costs increase $5,000 per unit for rural-residential; decrease $500 per unit for single-family residential; and increase by $1,000 per unit for multi-family residential development. However, the added cost may be offset by greater increases in value. Clearly, the largest financial cost of the design proposal is associated with the land acquisition program for conservation, which is estimated at around $270 million.

Some of the benefits of the design are also not calculated in dollar amounts. Benefits include: the efficiencies of concentrated development; higher-quality residential environments (which should be more valuable); improved air quality; improved fire management; protected agricultural land with its economic potential; higher rates of aquifer recharge; and a more sustainable urbanization strategy in the long term. While these benefits cannot be assessed easily in monetary terms, they do represent improvements on the trend.

The conservation strategy, which seeks to protect streams from channelization for ecological reasons also protects the taxpayers from the costs of channelization. At an average cost of between $1 million and $10 million per linear mile, channelization in the conservation zones would have a cost estimated at $250 million under conditions of trend development. Without channelization, the $250 million saving in the proposed design almost offsets the cost of conservation strategies. In the Santa Margarita River Basin alone, the design could save about $150 million in channelization costs.

Remember that one goal of the hydrologic conservation strategy was to lessen the projected increase in downstream flooding, particularly on MCB Camp Pendleton. With lessened flood threat, it is less likely that the Camp will need to relocate its air base at a possible savings of more than $2 billion. The benefits of foregoing this enormous public expense would more than offset the public costs of the proposed design.