United States Office of Municipal February 1985
EnSnmentll Protection Pollution Control (WH-546) EPA 430/9-84-011
Agency Washington DC 20460
vvEPA 1984 Needs Survey
Report to Congress
Assessment of Needed Publicly
Owned Wastewater Treatment
i Facilities in the United States
Jrk
(
1 »
-------
Document is available for sale to the public through:
National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, Virginia 22151
Dr. Howell, USEPA, Instruction Resource Center, 1200 Chambers Road
Columbus, Ohio 43212
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D C 20460
FEB 8 1985
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Honorable George Bush
President of the Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. President:
im.f ?? p]eased to send y°u a c°Py of the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) "Assessment of Needed Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities in
the United States," commonly known as the 1984 Needs Survey. This report is
required by sections 205(a) and 516(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act.
The 1984 Needs Survey, a joint effort of EPA and the States, assesses the
capital investment required to meet the needs of both our current 1984 and
future year 2000 populations. It also includes a projection of the potential
level of Federal investment in these facilities if all needs were fully funded
in accordance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act.
For the first time in the Needs Survey, as required by the 1981
Construction Grant Amendments, we have considered the relationship of these
"! M0. f"t.ureuwater qua^'ty. We have looked at the pollutant load trends
identified in the Needs Survey on a national and hydrologic basis. In
addition, we have estimated the overall, potential changes in the water
quality of our rivers and streams when, and if, the municipal wastewater
treatment needs are met. This is an important first step in analyzing the
national water quality impacts of municipal wastewater treatment facilities.
It provides a foundation for refining and reorienting some of the proposed
solutions to our municipal water quality problems in future surveys of needed
wastewater treatment facilities.
I would be pleased to discuss further the results of this Survey at your
convenience.
Lee M. Thomas
Acting Administrator
Enclosure
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
PEB 8 1985
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Honorable Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.
Speaker of the House
of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Speaker:
I am pleased to send you a copy of the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) "Assessment of Needed Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities in
the United States," commonly known as the 1984 Needs Survey. This report is
required by sections 205(a) and 516(b)(l) of the Clean Water Act.
The 1984 Needs Survey, a joint effort of EPA and the States, assesses the
capital investment required to meet the needs of both our current 1984 and
future year 2000 populations. It also includes a projection of the potential
level of Federal investment in these facilities if all needs were fully funded
in accordance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act.
For the first time in the Needs Survey, as required by the 1981
Construction Grant Amendments, we have considered the relationship of these
needs to future water quality. We have looked at the pollutant load trends
identified in the Needs Survey on a national and hydrologic basis. In
addition, we have estimated the overall, potential changes in the water
quality of our rivers and streams when, and if, the municipal wastewater
treatment needs are met. This is an important first step in analyzing the
national water quality impacts of municipal wastewater treatment facilities.
It provides a foundation for refining and reorienting some of the proposed
solutions to our municipal water quality problems in future surveys of needed
wastewater treatment facilities.
I would be pleased to discuss further the results of this Survey at your
convenience.
incerely,
Lee M. Thomas
Acting Administrator
Enclosure
-------
1984 Needs Survey
Report to Congress
Assessment of Needed Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment
Facilities in the United States
February 10,1985
Prepared by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Municipal Pollution Control (WH-595)
Washington, D.C. 20460
Tele: (202) 382-7251
and
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
West Chester, Pennsylvania
(Contract Number 68-01 -6830)
U.S. Environments? Protection Agency
Region V, Library
230 South Dearborn S:nast
Chicago, Illinois 60604
-------
-------
Table of Contents
PAGE
INTRODUCTION 1
What is the Bottom Line? 2
THE 1984 NEEDS SURVEY 4
Major Objectives „ 4
What is a "Need"? 4
What Types of Data Were Collected? 5
WHAT ARE THE NEEDS? 8
Reserve Capacity Limitations 9
Separate State Estimates 10
How are the Needs Distributed? 11
What Areas are Served by Combined Sewers? 11
What are the Combined Sewer Overflow Needs for
Marine Bay and Estuary Receiving Waters? 15
RELIABILITY OF THE NEEDS ESTIMATES 16
How Reliable are the Estimates? 16
How Reliable are the Combined Sewer Overflow Estimates? 18
IMPACT OF THE 1981 CONSTRUCTION GRANT AMENDMENTS 21
How do the 1981 Amendments Affect the Potential
Future Federal Investment? 21
What is the Impact of the Redefinition of Secondary
Treatment? 22
HOW NEEDS HAVE CHANGED 24
HOW MUCH HAS BEEN INVESTED IN MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT? .. 26
What Were the Results? 26
111
-------
HOW DO MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER NEEDS RELATE TO WATER QUALITY? 28
What is the Scope of the Water Quality Assessment? 28
What did the Water Quality Assessment Show? 29
^y? 30
Change in Pollutant Removal Capability 32
Change in Pollutant Load Distribution 33
Reliability of the Pollutant Load Estimates *.*.*.".*. 33
How Will Pollutant Loads Affect Water Quality
When Needs are Met? 35
A FINAL NOTE 36
GLOSSARY OF TERMS 37
Appendix A A^
Appendix B B-^
Appendix C
IV
-------
List of Tables
Table
1 Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Needs
Eligible for Federal Financial Assistance
Under the Clean Water Act
2 Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Needs
Unrestricted by the Reserve Capacity Limitations
of the Clean Water Act 10
3 Separate State Estimates 1;L
4 Combined Sewer Overflow Pollution
Control Needs for Marine Bays and Estuaries 15
5 Potential Capital Cost Savings from
Redefinition of Secondary Treatment 23
6 Comparison of Total Year 2000 Needs -
1980 Through 1984 Needs Surveys 24
7 Changes in Total Year 2000 Needs Between the
1982 and 1984 Needs Surveys 25
-------
List of Figures
Figure
1 U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Regions 7
2 Treatment and Conveyance Needs (Categories I-IV)
by Hydrologic Region 12
3 Per Capita Distribution of Treatment and Conveyance
Needs (Categories I-IV) by Hydrologic Region 13
4 1984 Combined Sewer Overflow (Category V) Needs
by State 14
5 Distribution of 1984 Needs Survey Estimates by
Level of Reliability (Ml Needs Categories) 17
6 Relative Levels of Reliability of the Needs
Survey Categor ies 19
7 Distribution of Federal Wastewater Treatment Grant
Awards Under the Clean Water Act by Hydrologic
Region 27
8 Distribution of Pollutant Loads by Stream
Use Objective 34
VI
-------
Introduction
This report summarizes the Environmental Protection Agency's
1984 assessment of needed publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities
in the United States. This biennial report is required by sections 205(a)
and 516(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act. The 1984 Needs Survey, a joint
effort of EPA and the States, is the seventh needs assessment since
enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
The Needs Survey assesses the capital investment required to meet the
needs of our current 1984 population (referred to as "backlog" needs in
previous Needs Surveys), as well as the additional amount needed for
population growth through the year 2000. The needs presented in this
report include those eligible for Federal financial assistance under the
Clean Water Act, reflecting the section 204(a)(5) reserve capacity
limitations. However, since State programs are not limited by Federal
eligibility requirements, the full year 2000 needs, unrestricted by the
reserve capacity limitations, have also been included. For the purposes
of this report we will refer to the year 2000 needs eligible for Federal
financial assistance as "eligible year 2000 needs" and the full year 2000
needs, unrestricted by the reserve capacity limitations, as "total year
2000 needs." All other items considered ineligible for Federal financial
assistance under the Clean Water Act were eliminated from this assessment.
In the 1981 Construction Grant Amendments, Congress added a new
dimension to the Needs Survey by directing EPA to "address water quality
needs adequately and appropriately." While the 1982 Needs Survey was too
far along to respond directly to this requirement, the foundations were
laid for conducting a comprehensive water quality needs assessment in the
1984 Survey. This report examines the potential, aggregate impacts of the
needed municipal facilities on future water quality.
In addition to presenting capital cost estimates and assessing the
water quality implications of constructing needed facilities, the
1984 Survey has sought to improve the quality of the survey data, to
evaluate the reliability of the cost estimates, and to assess the impact
of the 1981 Construction Grant Amendments on the potential amount of
future Federal investment in these municipal facilities. These goals
expand on those of previous Needs Surveys, which concentrated mainly on
estimating capital costs for needed facilities. Tne 1984 Needs Survey
responds directly to the Clean Water Act's intent of focusing the
construction grants program on improving water quality.
-1-
-------
What is the Bottom Line?
A capital investment of $40.6 billion is needed to construct necessary
primary, secondary, and advanced treatment plants; correct infiltration/
inflow; and construct new interceptor sewers for the current 1984
population. An additional $12.5 billion will be required in these areas
to address the population growth expected between 1984 and 2000 (eligible
year 2000 needs). These costs are for those portions of the municipal
facilities that are fully eligible for Federal financial assistance under
the Clean Water Act. Ineligible reserve capacity beyond October 1, 1990,
has been eliminated from these estimates. An additional $7.2 billion is
necessary beyond the reserve capacity limitations to address total
population growth through the year 2000 (total year 2000 needs).
Three other categories of municipal pollution projects are included in
this report: replacement and rehabilitation of existing sewers,
construction of new collector sewers, and correction of combined sewer
overflows (CSOs). The total need for the current 1984 population in these
three categories is $44.4 billion. An additional $4.2 billion will be
required for collector sewers to meet the demands of increased population
through the year 2000. While the Clean Water Act makes these categories
generally ineligible, Federal financial assistance can be given to any
individual facility at the discretion of a State Governor, up to a limit
of 20 percent of the State's allotment. Moreover, the Act includes
special funding provisions for CSOs in section 201(n). Therefore, these
needs are of clear concern to the States and municipalities, as well as to
EPA, and are thus presented in this report. These categories of need are
not affected by the reserve capacity limitations of the Act; the eligible
and total year 2000 needs are identical.
Unlike previous surveys, this report does not include cost estimates
for treating or controlling pollution from separate storm sewers, which
are not eligible for Federal grants. Because available data and
analytical techniques have changed very little in the past two years, the
1982 Needs Survey estimates for treatment or control of stormwater best
approximate this type of need. The 1982 estimate for the nation was
$93 billion.
Meeting all eligible needs identified in this report would result in a
potential future Federal investment of approximately $35.8 billion (1984
dollars). This projection is based on the provisions of the Clean Water
Act relating to Federal grant share, reserve capacity eligibility,
grandfathered phased and segmented projects, eligible funding categories,
and the discretion of Governors to fund projects in otherwise ineligible
categories.
In addition to the cost estimates, this report examines the potential
impacts of needed municipal facilities on future water quality. Focusing
on changes in conventional municipal pollutants, our analysis reaffirms
the strong gains that have been made since enactment of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, and predicts similar gains when
the municipal wastewater needs of the current population are satisfied.
-2-
-------
Of course, as population increases toward the end of the century,
State and local governments will have to continue implementing their
responsibility for construction of needed capacity, so that water quality
progress already made will continue. In fact, even though increased
population will add substantial new flows to the nation's waters, future
water quality would be no worse than it is today when State and local
governments construct the needed facilities. Only if the State and local
governments do not implement needed new capacity would future water
quality be worse than existing conditions.
The report does not attempt to predict absolute water quality at any
point in time, since we have not accounted for changes in the levels of
nonmunicipal pollution, such as industrial or nonpoint sources. In
addition, we do not know the timing or extent to which these needs will
actually be met. Final facility plans for many communities may well call
for advanced or nondischarging treatment processes that could result in
additional water quality improvements. This report assesses only the
relative, aggregate impacts of fully meeting the current 1984 needs
identified in the Needs Survey, whenever that may occur.
These cost estimates and their potential water quality impacts are the
bottom line, but they are by no means the total picture. Subsequent
sections of this report will put these estimates into perspective by
explaining how they were developed, examining their level of reliability,
calculating the potential future Federal investment, and investigating the
relationship between needs and water quality improvements.
-3-
-------
The 1984 Needs Survey
Major Objectives
Ihe major objectives of this report are three-fold: to update the
facility cost estimates of the 1982 Needs Survey, to calculate the
potential future Federal investment if all needs are met, and to assess
the possible water quality impacts of meeting those needs.
The first objective, to update the facility cost estimates, started
with the 1982 Needs Survey projections. Changes were made to account both
for inflation and for the planning and construction activities of
individual facilities during the past 2 years. This included grant
awards, new facility plans, advanced treatment reviews, and ocean
discharge waivers. In addition, we actively sought documentation for all
needs not based on detailed facility plans, and developed a means of
assessing the levels of reliability of the individual facility cost
estimates.
Because of the significant changes in Federal participation in
construction grants after October 1, 1984, the second objective is
to estimate the potential future Federal investment if all identified
needs are satisfied. This includes assessing the impacts of major
provisions of the 1981 Construction Grant Amendments affecting any future
Federal investment: eligible categories of need, reserve capacity, Federal
grant share, grandfathering of phased or segmented facilities, and the
various funding reserves.
The third, and newest, objective is jo assess the potential impact of
needed municipal wastewater treatment facilities on the receiving waters.
We have evaluated the relationship between meeting identified needs and
overall water quality. In addition, we have presented a hydrologic
perspective of traditional Needs Survey information, such as how needs are
distributed by river basin and which basins have already received grant
funding.
What is a "Need"?
A "need" is a cost estimate for building publicly owned wastewater
treatment facilities eligible for Federal financial assistance under the
Clean Water Act. Needs are estimated for facilities used in the
conveyance, storage, treatment, recycling, and reclamation of municipal
sewage wastes. Estimates are included for all types of needed changes to
wastewater facilities, including constructing entirely new facilities as
well as enlarging, upgrading, abandoning, and replacing existing
-4-
-------
facilities. Existing facilities are considered for replacement when they
have reached the end of their design life and are obsolete. Other types
of changes to existing facilities are projected as a response to the
statutory requirements of the Clean Water Act. These estimates do not
include costs for operation and maintenance.
The total need for a facility has been divided into the following cost
categories:
o Category I - Secondary Treatment
o Category II - Advanced Treatment
o Category IIIA - Infiltration/Inflow Correction
o Category IIIB - Major Sewer Rehabilitation
o Category IVA - New Collector Sewers
o Category IVB - New Interceptor Sewers
o Category V - Combined Sewer Overflows
These categories relate to the various types of municipal wastewater
construction projects. Expanded explanations of each category can be
found in the Glossary.
What Types of Data Were Collected?
The 1984 Needs Survey contains the following three types of data:
o Cost data. Working through the State agencies, EPA obtained
estimates of the needed future capital investment for each
individual municipal wastewater treatment facility. The cost
estimates are for those portions of a facility eligible for Federal
financial assistance under the Clean Water Act. Cost estimates
were obtained from detailed planning documents whenever possible.
It must be noted, however, that in many cases these facility plans
were as much as 6 to 8 years old, reflecting the surge in facility
planning that took place following the enactment of the 1972
Amendments. Facility planning cost estimates are not generally
updated for the purposes of the Needs Survey except to account for
the effects of inflation. If detailed planning documents were not
available, but a need was identified by a State, estimates were
developed using generalized cost-estimating procedures.
The estimates are separated into the costs needed for the current
1984 and the expanded year 2000 populations. The incremental
year 2000 cost estimates were then modified by EPA to reflect the
section 204(a)(5) reserve capacity limitations of the Act. The
estimates for 1984 are based on population projections developed by
the Census Bureau in July 1982; the year 2000 estimates are based
on population projections developed by the Department of Commerce.
-5-
-------
o Facility data. In addition to cost data, we collected various
types of technical information for each facility. Of interest were
the operational status of the facility, the population of the
service area, the existing or planned treatment process,
anticipated changes or additions to the treatment process, current
and projected effluent quality, and required sewer system
expansions or improvements.
o Hydrologic data. The cost and facility data were also linked to
various hydrologic data for national analysis and basinwide water
quality simulation. Stream system data include hydrologic flow
paths, mean and low flows, and stream segment length, slope, and
latitude/longitude. Pollution data for point sources include the
receiving stream, current and planned municipal effluent
characteristics and flows, and standardized industrial effluent
data. Also included are the State-designated uses and the ammonia
and dissolved oxygen criteria that apply to each stream. The data
were grouped by the 21 U.S. Geological Survey regional hydrologic
units (Figure 1). For the 1984 Needs Survey, these units have been
divided into 314 subbasins, many of which cross State lines.
-6-
-------
Mid-Atlantic
FIGURE 1 UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY HYDROLOGIC REGIONS
-------
What are the Needs?
The capital investment necessary to address current 1984 and future
year 2000 municipal wastewater treatment needs, eligible for Federal
financial assistance under the Clean Water Act, is presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1
Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Needs
Eligible for Federal Financial Assistance
Under the Clean Water Act
(January 1984 dollars in billions)
For Increment for
Current 1984 Year 2000
Needs Category Population Population
I Secondary Treatment $23.0 $5.6*
II Advanced Treatment 4.1 i.o*
IIIA Infiltration/Inflow 2.8 0.0
IIIB Replacement/Rehabilitation 3.2** 0.0**
IVA New Collector Sewers 18.0** 4.2**
IVB New Interceptor Sewers 10.7 5.9*
V Combined Sewer Overflows 23.2** 0.0**
Total Treatment (I, II) $27.1 $6.6*
Total I, II, IIIA, and IVB $40.6 $12.5*
Total I-V $85.0 $16.7*
* Needs estimates limited by the section 204 (a) (5) reserve
restrictions.
Total
through
Year 2000
$28.6*
5.1*
2.8
3.2**
22.2**
16.6*
23.2**
$33.7*
$53.1*
$101.7*
capacity
** For these categories a Governor may not use more than 20 percent
of the State allotment in any fiscal year (except for CSOs funded
under section 201 (n) ) .
Table 1 presents EPA's assessment of the total municipal wastewater
treatment needs eligible for Federal financial assistance under the Clean
Water Act. Ineligible needs, such as house connections to sewers, certain
land acquisition costs not a part of a treatment process, and reserve
capacity beyond the limitations of the 1981 Construction Grant Amendments,
are not included. Costs for Categories IIIB (Replacement/Rehabilitation) ,
IVA (New Collector Sewers), and V (Combined Sewer Overflows) are included
because any individual facility in these categories can receive Federal
financial assistance through the Governor's discretion to use up to
20 percent of his allotment in any fiscal year for these categories of
projects. In addition, upon request of a Governor, EPA may authorize funds
from the State allotment to be used for combined sewer overflow control
-8-
-------
where correction of such discharges is a major priority of the State.
Since there is no way of knowing which facilities will be funded, or how
much of the 20 percent will be used in any State, the entire need is
reported in the survey. Also, since combined sewers are no longer built,
we do not estimate combined sewer overflow needs for future populations.
Since our assumptions on limiting reserve capacity have been
established on a gross basis, the results are not meaningful for individual
projects, and may, in fact, be overstating the eligible need for any
facility that is funded before October 1, 1990. The eligible reserve
capacity of an individual facility can only be determined when the exact
date of grant award is known. However, the national and State totals do
give a good indication of the overall impact of the reserve capacity
limitations.
Reserve Capacity Limitations
Section 204(a)(5) of the Clean Water Act states that beginning
October 1, 1984, no grant shall be made to construct that portion of a
treatment works providing reserve capacity in excess of existing needs on
the date of approval of a grant. In no event shall the reserve capacity be
in excess of needs existing on October 1, 1990. In cases where an
applicant proposes to provide reserve capacity greater than that eligible
for Federal financial assistance, the incremental costs of the additional
reserve capacity shall be paid by the applicant. However, if EPA awarded a
grant for a Step 3 interceptor segment before December 29, 1981, grants for
the remaining interceptor segments included in the facilities plan may
include the full planned reserve capacity, up to 40 years. For primary,
secondary, or advanced treatment facilities and their interceptors that had
Step 3 segments awarded before October 1, 1984, any remaining segments may
include 20-years reserve capacity.
To avoid overstating the estimate of eligible needs in Table 1, we have
reduced the total year 2000 needs submitted by the States, which contained
no restrictions on reserve capacity, to approximate the impact of the
eligible capacity limitations of the Amendments. We limited the size of
each facility not affected by the grandfathering provisions of the Act to
its projected 1990 capacity, resulting in a $7.2 billion reduction in the
year 2000 need. Without the reserve capacity limitations, the estimated
needs would be as shown in Table 2.
—9—
-------
TABLE 2
Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Needs
Unrestricted by the Reserve Capacity Limitations
of the Clean Water Act
(January 1984 dollars in billions)
For Increment for Total
Current 1984 Year 2000 through
Needs Category Population Population Year 2000
I Secondary Treatment $23.0 $9.6* $32.6*
II Advanced Treatment 4.1 1.5* 5.5*
IIIA Infiltration/Inflow 2.8 0.0 2*.8
IIIB Replacement/Rehabilitation 3.2** 0.0** 3J2**
IVA New Collector Sewers 18.0** 4.2** 22.2**
IVB New Interceptor Sewers 10.7 8.6* 19.3*
V Combined Sewer Overflows 23.2** 0.0** 23.2**
Total Treatment (I, II) $27.1 311.1* $38.2*
Total I, II, IIIA, and IVB $40.6 $19.7* $60.3*
Tota! I-V $85.0 $23.9* $108.9*
* Needs estimates not limited by the section 204(a)(5) reserve
capacity restrictions.
** For these categories a Governor may not use more than 20 percent
of the State allotment in any fiscal year (except for CSOs funded
under section 201(n)).
Separate State Estimates
During the survey, all cost estimates and supporting documentation were
reviewed by the EPA Needs Survey contractor. Occasionally there were
disagreements over acceptable cost estimates. Whenever a disagreement
could not be resolved, the State had the option of submitting a separate
State estimate.
During the 1984 Survey, more than 95,000 individual cost estimates were
reviewed. Out of this number there were only 57 cases, in California and
Puerto Rico, in which disagreements could not be resolved and separate
State estimates were submitted. If these estimates were added to the EPA
assessment, the current 1984 need would increase by $1,028 million and the
total year 2000 need by $973 million. Details on the dollar differences by
category are presented in Table 3.
-10-
-------
TABLE 3
Separate State Estimates
(January 1984 dollars in millions)
Mc^ods
Category Current 1984 Nf>pd Total Year 2000
Calif.
I +$253
II 0
IIIA - 165
IIIB - 107
IVA +100
IVB + 674
V 0
Total +$755
P.Rico
+$103
1
+ 27
0
+ 36
+ 108
0
+$273
Total
+$356
1
- 138
- 107
+ 136
+ 782
0
+31,028
Calif.
+$235
0
- 165
- 107
+ 100
+ 623
0
+$686
P. Rico
+$129
0
+ 27
0
+ 21
+ 110
0
+$287
Need
Total
+$364
0
- 138
- 107
+ 121
+ 733
0
+$973
How are the Needs Distributed?
Traditionally, EPA has reported needs only on a State and national
basis. However, to show how needs are distributed geographically
throughout the country, we have now correlated them to the water network of
the United States, aggregating them by the major hydrologic regions.
Figure 2 presents the current 1984 and the incremental total year 2000
Category I-IV needs; Figure 3 presents these needs on a per capita basis.
The traditional State distribution by needs category is contained in
Appendix A. The distribution by the 314 subbasins is contained in
Appendix C.
What Areas are Served by Combined Sewers?
The inventory of areas served by combined sewers reported in the 1982
Needs Survey has changed very little. The 1,143 combined sewer systems
across the country serve an area of 3.2 million acres and a population of
43 million people. More than 73 percent of the CSO control need is found
in urbanized areas (where a central city population of at least 50,000 is
surrounded by closely-settled areas). Figure 4 shows the State
distribution of projected combined sewer needs for the current 1984
population. Tables in Appendix A present the 1984 CSO needs estimates by
State; tables in Appendix C show the distribution of CSO needs by basis of
estimate (generic stream use objective) and receiving water type.
Appendix C also contains tables on the number of CSO facilities, CSO area,
and CSO population by State.
-11-
-------
Current 1984 Needs
(Millions of 1984 Dollars)
Percent of Total
National Need
($61 8 Billion)
D Less than 2%
D 2-8%
^ Greater than 8'
Incremental Total Year 2OOO Needs
(Millions of 1984 Dollars)
Percent of Total
National Increment
($23.9 Billion)
D Less than 2%
D 2-8%
Greater than 8°/
FIGURE 2 TREATMENT AND CONVEYANCE NEEDS (CATEGORIES I-IV)
BY HYDROLOGIC REGION
-12-
-------
Current 1984 Needs
(1984 Dollars)
Current
Per Capita Dollars
D $0-70
D $71-250
!H Greater than $250
$981
Incremental Total Year 2000 Needs
(1984 Dollars)
Incremental
Per Capita Dollars
D $0-70
C3 $71-250
^ Greater than $250
$167
FIGURE 3 PER CAPITA DISTRIBUTION OF TREATMENT AND CONVEYANCE
NEEDS (CATEGORIES I-IV) BY HYDROLOGIC REGION
-13-
-------
Range of State Need
in Millions of 1984 Dollars*
Greater than $1000
$500-1000
tiii Less than $500
I I None
*Total = $23.2 Billion
$20
FIGURE 4 1984 COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW
(CATEGORY V) NEEDS BY STATE
-------
What are the Combined Sewer Overflow Needs
for Marine Bay and Estuary Receiving Waters?
The State distribution of combined sewer facilities affecting the
tidally-influenced coastal waters of bays and estuaries is shown in Table 4.
Nationally, only 10 percent of all CSO facilities affect marine bays and
estuaries. Seventeen States have a total of 114 combined sewer facilities
potentially affecting these tidal waters. However, these facilities
account for about 40 percent of the total Category V dollar needs and
38 percent of the total population served by combined sewers. Ihe national
needs for these facilities are estimated to be $9.4 billion. The final
eligibility determination for funding these needs under the separate marine
CSO fund (section 201(n)(2) of the Clean Water Act) depends on individual
reviews of site specific criteria which must be presented in each grant
application.
TABLE 4
Combined Sewer Overflow Pollution Control Needs
for Marine Bays and Estuaries
(January 1984 dollars in millions)
State Needs Estimate
Alaska $ 6
California 396
Connecticut 410
Delaware 181
District of Columbia 31
Georgia 3
Maine 251
Maryland 8
Massachusetts 89 5
New Hampshire 14
New Jersey 1,010
New York 4,816
Oregon 4
Pennsylvania 512
Rhode Island 316
Virginia 135
Washington 371
Total $9,359
-15-
-------
Reliability of the Needs Estimates
So far in this report we have presented the needs as aggregate State
and national totals. However, these needs are made up of individual
estimates for more than 22,550 facilities. How consistent are the data?
Are the needs for each facility based on the same level of documentation?
To draw meaningful results from the needs data, we must look at the
reliability of the individual facility estimates.
While, in general, all States followed the same basic procedures in
developing their estimates, and all estimates were subjected to the same
quality assurance, there are significant differences in the reliability of
the data, not only from State-to-State, but also from facility-to-
facility. Not all facilities have progressed to the same level of
planning. Almost 60 percent of the current 1984 needs ($51 billion) are
based on approved facility plans with detailed cost estimates. The rest
($34 billion) lack completed facility planning. Although these needs are
reported in this survey, the cost estimates are far less reliable than
those based on facility plans. For the incremental eligible year 2000
needs, 56 percent ($9.3 billion) are based on facility planning.
How Reliable are the Estimates?
To account for the wide range in the quality of documentation
available to support the cost estimates, the needs have been broken down
into three levels of reliability, as follows:
o Reliability Level 1: Needs based on specific facility planning
documents. This includes estimates for facilities both with and
without current works in operation.
0 Reliability Level 2; Needs based on construction cost curves for
facilities that currently have some type of works in operation or
under construction. No facility planning has been completed for
the remaining needs.
0 Reliability Level 3: Needs based on construction cost curves for
facilities that currently have no works in operation or under
construction. No facility planning has been completed.
Figure 5 shows the distribution by levels of reliability of both
current 1984 and incremental eligible year 2000 needs. Needs in
Reliability Level 1 tend to represent larger urban communities that are
well into the planning stages prior to construction. In contrast,
Reliability Level 3 needs represent numerous small, rural communities that
are only now beginning to formulate solutions to municipal wastewater
problems.
-16-
-------
Current 1984 Needs
$85.0 Billion
20,117 Facilities
Dollar Amount
Number of
Facilities
Incremental Year 2000 Needs
$16.7 Billion
22,550 Facilities
Dollar Amount
Number of
Facilities
FIGURE 5 DISTRIBUTION OF 1984 NEEDS SURVEY ESTIMATES BY
LEVEL OF RELIABILITY (ALL NEEDS CATEGORIES)
-17-
-------
The variations in reliability of the estimates are also evident in the
different needs categories. Figure 6 presents the relative levels of
reliability associated with each category of need. The figure shows how
much of each category is based on facility planning, the highest
reliability level. Since the distribution is generally the same for both
the current 1984 and the incremental eligible year 2000 needs, we have
only shown the distribution for the total eligible needs.
As can be seen, there is a great deal of difference in reliability
among the Needs Survey categories. The needs estimate is not
homogeneous. Treatment and interceptor needs (Categories I, II, IIIA, and
IVB), the categories that are fully eligible under the Clean Water Act,
are based more predominantly on facility planning. There is a much
greater level of reliability that these projects will proceed as planned.
The Category IIIB (Replacement/Rehabilitation) estimate shows 100 percent
in Reliability Level 1 because we only accept estimates in this category
if they are based on facility plans.
The estimates for the remaining categories, those with only limited
eligibility under the Clean Water Act, are based more on generalized cost
curves. As these facilities move through the planning process, the needs
could change substantially in either direction, depending on the magnitude
of the actual problem and the solution chosen to address those needs.
Most Category V cost estimates, unlike those for Categories I through IV,
have been developed on an areawide basis, rather than on a facility basis,
and are not generally based on specific facility plans.
A detailed State-by-State distribution of needs among the various
levels of reliability can be found in Appendix A.
How Reliable are the Combined Sewer Overflow Estimates?
The level of reliability of the 1982 CSO estimate was relatively low,
since only 4 percent of the total need was based on 26 approved facility
plans. The majority of the needs (96 percent) were based on a generalized
process that projected the optimum cost of CSO control required to protect
the receiving water uses designated by State water quality standards.
Thus, the 1982 Category V estimate of $35.7 billion ($40.2 billion in 1984
dollars) largely represented the extreme case where all combined sewer
overflows in the nation would be controlled to meet State water quality
standards, which are often oriented toward dry weather, low-flow
conditions.
Requirements for documentation of the Category V CSO need in the 1984
survey were relaxed to include 137 areas with acceptable State planning
documents, in addition to the 26 approved facility plans. In examining
the reliability of the estimates during the 1984 Needs Survey, we found
that CSO control needs reported in the available planning documents were
much lower than the generalized Needs Survey estimates (by approximately
-18-
-------
100
~ 80
0)
-J
s>£
E"°
'•5=3 60
0^
Is 40
u o
0)^
o
"S
M
£ 20
n
'$$^$$$$ii$$ii$$$$i$!$$i$Biif$:
:f:;:j:
1;
|
!;Xv!
•X'X*
•X%v
Ivlv!
iiviv:;:;:;-;:
f::::::::::%::::::
SSSiSiii-iiii:
Sg^vi
:§::•¥:$:::•:
•x'x'X'X'x
igSSSS
>X'X'X'X*I^
•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•
•II
wi&Sx';
SSiSS:
:j:g:W:g
•X*X*XvX'
XvXvXv'
x*x*x*x*x
ftwXwX
x*x*x%*x*
x*x*x*x*x
gggss
$$S$j§S
iSSSSi:
Ill
ISHgjS
:?SSSJS
'••*••••••••*•*•***'
iSggj-H
uii
s^^5
**X*X*»*»*«v«
jjjj§
::::::::::::-::::i::
cSSSI'iSl'i
igSxgg:
;:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•
•!::!:•:!:•:•§$:
SSjijijSii
illiii
HI
l?iW:;:i:;:
X*X*X*XvX*I*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X;XvX*X;XvXvIx*l'
•SSSSS
ill
S:gH::j::
iiS:-:-:!:-:-:!:
•X"X*X*Xv
•x*x*i'S*i*i*
X*X*X*X*X'
S^§w
:$•::•:•:•!•!•:•:•
?^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^
iiiiSiijHjs
:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•!•:
SHgW:;
•XvIvX-X*
lllixi
W
>:•:•
:?:•
&:
IIIA NIB IVA
Category of Need
IVB
V
FIGURE 6 RELATIVE LEVELS OF RELIABILITY OF THE NEEDS
SURVEY CATEGORIES
-------
$4.9 billion), often because of the site-specific considerations of actual
water use attainability. Without the benefit of water use studies, the
Needs Survey's generalized cost-estimating technique assumes that all
points in one combined sewer area require equal control, although their
receiving waters could differ. Typically, however, use attainment can be
achieved by construction of CSO controls at selected, rather than all,
overflow points. In addition, we found that CSO control costs are higher
in urban areas than in rural areas. To correct these discrepancies, the
urban ($15.2 billion) and nonurban ($7.8 billion) rule-of-thumb estimates
were reduced by 43 percent and 71 percent, respectively, to account for
these findings. The remaining $12.2 billion of CSO need, derived from
specific State plans, was not adjusted. The total 1984 adjusted and
unadjusted national CSO needs are $23.2 billion and $35.3 billion,
respectively. Adjusted and unadjusted State totals can be found in
Appendix A. All other CSO needs in this report represent adjusted totals.
-20-
-------
Impact of the 1981 Construction
Grant Amendments
The 1981 Construction Grant Amendments substantially altered the level
of Federal participation in grant awards to municipal wastewater treatment
facilities. Changes in reserve capacity eligibility, Federal grant share,
eligible funding categories, and the discretion of Governors to fund
projects in otherwise ineligible categories, greatly altered both the
potential future level of Federal grant participation and the level of
eligible needs. Earlier in this report we discussed the impact of the
Amendments on eligible levels of reserve capacity and the eligible funding
categories. In this section we will discuss their impacts on the
potential level of future Federal investment if all needs are satisfied.
In addition, we will address the impact on the needs arising from the
redefinition of secondary treatment.
How do the 1981 Amendments Affect
the Potential Future Federal Investment?
The Federal grant share and the grandfathering provisions for phased
and segmented projects, as well as the previously discussed eligibility
limitations, affect the potential amount of future Federal investment in
municipal wastewater facilities. In general, after October 1, 1984, the
Federal grant share is 55 percent, except for a 20 percent bonus for
innovative and alternative projects, or if the Governor decides to modify
the Federal share to a lower percentage rate uniform throughout the
State. If an initial phase or segment of a facility was awarded before
October 1, 1984, the remaining phases or segments, including full reserve
capacity under the grandfathering provision, would receive 75 percent
grants (or the lower uniform rate as determined by the Governor).
Based on these provisions, we have calculated the potential future
Federal investment to be $35.8 billion. This compares with tho pgHm^0
of $37.3 billion ($41.8 billion in January 1984 dollars) presented in the
1982 Needs Survey. The differences can be related to more accurate
identification of projects eligible for the grandfathering provisions for
Federal grant share and reserve capacity eligibility, grant awards made
during the past 2 years, and the updated cost estimates for all categories
of need.
To calculate the potential future Federal investment, it was necessary
to make certain assumptions concerning future activity in the construction
grants program. The major assumptions are as follows:
o The annual rate of capital investment would remain the same as it
is today, using the present State allotment formula for Federal
appropr iations.
-21-
-------
o Each State would use 15 percent of its yearly allotment for the
various set-asides: 1 percent for water quality studies, 4 percent
for State program management, and 10 percent for funding of
otherwise ineligible categories of projects (Categories IIIB, IVA,
and V). For this last set-aside we assumed that, on the average,
each Governor would use one-half of the maximum 20 percent that can
be used for this purpose.
o Each State would split its remaining allotment evenly between
funding the continuation or completion of phased/segmented projects
and starting new projects.
o All nongrandfathered projects were assumed to be funded at a
55 percent Federal share, except for those identified as innovative
or alternative, which received 75 percent funding. Grandfathered
projects were assumed to be funded at a 75 percent Federal share.
o The reserve capacity requirements for nongrandfathered projects
were determined using State-supplied 1990 population estimates to
calculate a 1990 flow.
There are many uncertainties in the calculation, and a careful review of
the assumptions should be made to fully understand the implications of the
total projection. A change in any of these assumptions would change the
total projected potential Federal investment.
What is the Impact of the Redefinition of Secondary Treatment?
Based on section 23 of the 1981 Construction Grant Amendments, EPA
developed a rule amending the secondary treatment regulation. This rule
establishes categories of facilities that are deemed equivalent to
secondary treatment (i.e., trickling filters and waste stabilization
ponds) and establishes new (not to be exceeded) limitations for such
facilities. The rule states that the effluent quality that is generally
attainable by the trickling filter unit process or the waste stabilization
pond treatment process be considered equivalent to secondary treatment as
long as water quality is not adversely affected.
Vfe have prepared an estimate of the potential savings in capital
construction costs that would be realized by municipalities if the new
options were adopted universally. The estimate is shown in Table 5.
These potential savings are not reflected in any of the other need totals
because they depend largely on decisions yet to be made by each permitting
authority. Therefore, the estimate is a maximum; the actual amount could
be considerably less.
-22-
-------
TABLE 5
Potential Capital Cost Savings
from Redefinition of Secondary Treatment
(January 1984 dollars in billions)
Total Needs Potential Savings
Existing Facilities $0.37 $0.37
New Facilities 2.65 1.51
Total $3.02 $1.88
The estimate of savings is broken into two parts: savings at existing
facilities and savings at new facilities. Savings at existing facilities
would be realized if the authority could forego an upgrading program and
continue to utilize an existing trickling filter or lagoon process until
it requires replacement. Savings at new or replacement facilities would
be realized if the authority could choose a less costly process train and
still achieve the new equivalent limits for secondary treatment.
-23-
-------
How Needs Have Changed
Needs have varied considerably from survey-to-survey. A comparison of
the total year 2000 needs for the past three surveys is presented in
Table 6. For comparison purposes, the needs have all been presented in
current 1984 dollars. We have also included a total line in nominal
dollars (the face dollar value not adjusted for inflation) so that these
numbers can be easily related to past survey reports. Appendix B provides
the State distribution of 1982 needs by category.
TABLE
Comparison of Total
1980 through 1984
6
Year 2000 Needs
Needs Surveys
(January 1984 dollars in billions)
Needs
Category
I Secondary Treatment
II Advanced Treatment
IIIA Infiltration/Inflow
IIIB Replacement/Rehabilitation
IVA New Collector Sewers
IVB New Interceptor Sewers
V Combined Sewer Overflows
Total I, II, IIIA, and IVB
Total I-V
Total I-V (Nominal dollars)
1980 1982
Survey Survey
$35.9 $34.3
7.0 6.3
3.2 2.9
7.7 5.3
23.8 23.4
27.5 20.2
48.0 40.2
$73.6 $63.7
$153.1 $132.6
$119.9 $118.4
1984
Survey
$32.6
5.6
2.8
3.2
22.2
19.3
23.2
$60.3
$108.9
$108.9
Many factors contribute to these changes. Inflation, grant awards,
new facility planning, and revised estimating procedures all contribute to
the differences. To illustrate the relative magnitude and impact of these
various factors, Table 7 quantifies the major areas of change between the
1982 and 1984 survey estimates for year 2000 populations.
-24-
-------
TABLE 7
Changes in Total Year 2000 Needs
Between the 1982 and 1984 Needs Surveys
(Nominal dollars in billions)
Type of Change
Grant awards
Inflation for 1982 and 1983
Facility additions to survey
Facility deletions from survey
Better available planning
(including State CSO plans)
Adjustments to CSO need
Net Change
Change in Needs
-$6.3
+16.4
+1.2
-1.5
-8.5
- 10.8
-$9.5
As you can see, inflation dramatically affects needs. If inflation
were omitted, the net decrease in the total year 2000 needs would be
$25.9 billion. Besides inflation, the largest impact on the needs
estimate was due to the adjustment to the CSO need (this adjustment has
been discussed in detail earlier in this report). The other major impact,
a $8.5 billion decrease, occurred because of the better levels of planning
available to document the needs in Reliability Level 1, particularly for
the CSO need, and the improved cost curves used for the Reliability
Level 2 and 3 estimates.
-25-
-------
How Much Has Been Invested in
Municipal Wastewater Treatment?
As discussed previously, construction grant funding by municipalities,
States, and the Federal government is one of the major reasons why real
needs have decreased over the years. Since passage of the Clean Water Act
in 1972, there has been an investment of more than $56 billion in Federal,
State, and local funding (source: America's Clean Water). The
distribution of Federal wastewater treatment grant awards during this
period is shown by hydrologic region in Figure 7 and by subbasin in
Appendix C.
What Were the Results?
Despite increases in population, significant water quality gains have
been achieved since the enactment of the Clean Water Act. Construction
grant funding has resulted in the construction or improvement of
approximately 3,500 treatment facilities. The nation's waters have
benefited from providing municipal wastewater treatment improvements to a
total of 21 million people.
The States' evaluation of progress, presented by the Association of
State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators in
America's Clean Water, estimates national water quality improvements from
1972 to 1982. Out of 758,000 stream miles evaluated, the report states
that "... in the 49 States that reported on water quality conditions
between 1972 and 1982, 296,000 miles were reported to have maintained the
same water quality, 47,000 miles improved, and 11,000 miles have been
degraded." Pollutants discharged from municipal plants were reported to
have decreased by 46 percent in that period. Our report now looks at how
future water quality could be affected as the current and future needs are
met.
-26-
-------
Total Grant Awards
(Millions of Dollars)
Percent of Total
Grant Dollars
($372 Billion)
^ Greater than 4%
CD 1-4%
D Less than 1%
Per Capita Grant Awards
Per Capita
Grant Dollars
$500-1000
$100-500
D Less than $100
$207
FIGURE 7 DISTRIBUTION OF FEDERAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
GRANT AWARDS UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT BY
HYDROLOGIC REGIONS
-27-
-------
How do Municipal Wastewater
Needs Relate to Water Quality?
The needs presented in this report reflect present State planning for
the construction of municipal wastewater collection and treatment
facilities to serve the current 1984 and future year 2000 populations of
the United States. Today, 169 million people send a daily load of 23,000
tons of pollutants to 15,400 municipal facilities. When all needs are met
through the year 2000, the sewered population will grow to 246 million
people, sending 41,000 tons of pollutants to more than 20,000 facilities
for treatment.
This section of the report is an assessment of the extent to which
these additional facilities will work to protect the quality of our
nation's waters. We will present trends found in the Needs Survey data
that affect the quality of our water, such as increases in municipal
pollutant loads and the population served by municipal wastewater
treatment works. In addition, we will present the results of water
quality simulations used to evaluate the potential impacts of constructing
the needed facilities. For this assessment, we assumed that all of the
reported needs would be met, without regard to who assumes the financial
responsibility.
What is the Scope of the Water Quality Assessment?
This assessment examines the basinwide, aggregate impacts of meeting
the current and total year 2000 needs, whenever that may occur. Our
projections of municipal impacts are not a prediction of actual water
quality at any place or at any point in time - past, present, or future.
They are intended only to reflect the potential, relative impacts of
satisfying the needs identified in this survey.
This study addresses the national wastewater treatment trends for all
municipal discharges received by all types of water bodies: rivers,
streams, oceans, bays, harbors, estuaries, and large lakes. However, a
major focus of the study is an analysis of the water quality impacts of
the 76 percent of the total number of municipal facilities (62 percent of
the total national pollutant load) which discharge to rivers and streams
during critical low flow conditions. Standard water quality analytical
approaches can be readily applied to rivers and streams; other types of
water bodies exhibit complex features that are not readily simulated.
Industrial dischargers and the indirect effects of nonpoint source
pollution are held constant at 1984 levels so that we can isolate the role
of the municipal wastewater treatment facilities.
For this study, an acceptable level of water quality is considered
achieved when the dissolved oxygen averaged over the length of the
receiving stream segment meets the State water quality standards. Changes
in acceptable water quality are reported in terms of the number of stream
segment miles affected.
-28-
-------
For simplification, municipal pollution estimates in this report
represent the pollutant most common to domestic sewage - biochemical
oxygen demand (carbonaceous and nitrogenous). The biochemical oxygen
demand in wastewater lowers the level of instream dissolved oxygen which
is essential to the support of aquatic life and public use. We recognize,
however, that other pollutants, including some toxic materials, exist in
municipal influent and are partially removed by wastewater treatment.
This report does not evaluate the direct relationship of needs to
public health. Public health gains from construction of municipal
treatment works are extensive, although somewhat intangible and difficult
to quantify. This report does address the water quality implications of
meeting the future needs of presently unsewered areas, which are often
public health related. Sewering these areas may eliminate severe public
health hazards associated with underground public and private drinking
water sources or surface-water contamination from failing septic systems.
In our simulation analysis of water quality in rivers and streams, we
have made a clear distinction between the levels of reliability of the
needs estimates for individual facilities, similar to that discussed
earlier in this report. Facilities with needs based on detailed planning
or with currently operating treatment works (Reliability Levels 1 and 2)
are more likely to proceed as reflected in the Needs Survey. Other
potential facilities (Reliability Level 3) may be changed to higher levels
of treatment or to nondischarginq systems before construction is
initiated. The findings of our water quality analysis should be
interpreted accordingly.
The last factor to be considered is the quality of the data used in
the water quality simulations. While most data received sufficient State
review and analysis to assure the credibility of our overall results, data
quality varies substantially among the States. About 10 States with
limited resources were unable to provide an extensive quality review
effort, and about five States chose not to participate at all. In these
cases, basinwide surrogates, rather than individual water quality
parameters, were used for the various water bodies. Since we developed
and reported our results on an aggregate basis, however, this approach did
not severely impair the overall results of our analysis.
What did the Water Quality Assessment Show?
The Clean Water Act requires municipal dischargers to comply with
effluent standards designed to protect water quality. How well do the
municipal needs reported by States accomplish this goal? What will be the
impact of meeting the needs identified in this survey? The 1984 Needs
Survey assessment provides the following conclusions:
-29-
-------
o Satisfying current needs will provide further water quality
improvements. Meeting the current 1984 treatment needs for
facilities with detailed facility planning or with current works in
operation (Reliability Levels 1 and 2) would result in
significantly improved levels of water quality, matching the gains
of the past decade. The rate of improvement, however, depends on
the rate at which the needs are met. Satisfying the needs of the
current population will require the treatment of greater volumes of
domestic wastes at increasing levels of facility performance.
o Increased effort is needed to maintain water quality in the future.
As the nation's population increases through the year 2000, the
reported needs do not adequately reflect the measures necessary to
accommodate future increased pollutant loads. Meeting water
quality goals will require changes in some of the projected
pollution control measures, as well as their associated cost
estimates. As population increases toward the end of the century,
State and local governments will have to continue implementing
their responsibility for construction of needed capacity, so that
water quality progress already made will continue. In fact, even
though increased population will add substantial new flows to the
nation's waters, future water quality would be no worse than it is
today when State and local governments construct the needed
facilities. Only if the State and local governments do not
implement needed new capacity would future water quality be worse
than existing conditions.
o Further planning is necessary for many poorly documented
facilities. The needs for Reliability Level 3 facilities (those
without facility planning or current works in operation) must be
reevaluated. The planning for population growth and additional
sewer areas is very preliminary. Additional safeguards, such as
nondischarging treatment systems or higher treatment levels, may be
necessary to mitigate adverse water quality impacts.
Why?
Water quality improvements in the period prior to 1984 reflect the
efforts of States and municipalities to attain secondary or higher levels
of treatment following enactment of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments. Secondary treatment of raw and primary municipal
discharges has resulted in significant increases in water quality. To
date, the Federal construction grants program, together with State and
local programs, has made great strides in cleaning up water pollution near
the major population centers on larger rivers.
-30-
-------
This national progress will continue as we meet the remaining needs of
the current 1984 population. These current needs concentrate on
completing the job of providing secondary treatment for the 202 remaining
raw discharges and the more than 2,600 facilities now operating at
insufficient levels of treatment. When current needs are met, the number
of people served by municipal treatment works will increase by 32 percent,
while the effluent pollutant load will decrease by 34 percent. When the
current, well-documented needs in Reliability Levels 1 and 2 are met, the
quality of most present receiving waters will be maintained, and many
other streams not presently capable of supporting their designated uses
will be restored.
By the year 2000, though, today's service population could increase by
almost 55 percent, with an effluent pollutant load increase of 9 percent.
With the apparently insufficient level of needs identified in this report
to address this increased load, the overall level of water quality would
be essentially the same as it is today for areas with needs in Reliability
Levels 1 and 2. The gains that were made by meeting the current needs
would be offset by the effects of increased population and decreased
pollutant removal capability. Additional pollution control measures will
be required to ensure continued improvements in water quality as these
needs are met.
If we include the largely undocumented Reliability Level 3 needs, the
situation could become even more acute. Many of these needs are for
providing secondary levels of treatment to new growth areas or areas that
are currently served by nondischarging facilities such as septic tanks.
These new discharges, often to smaller headwater streams, could result in
new water quality impairments unless appropriate control measures are
taken. As final plans for these facilities are developed, many will
undoubtedly recommend higher levels of treatment or alternate methods of
disposal to ensure that additional impairments do not occur.
These conclusions can be explained by the interaction of four factors:
o Increasing population and pollutants. In this Needs Survey, States
project that 72 million people will receive new or improved levels
of treatment and collection when the total year 2000 needs are
met. This population increase will generate a national pollutant
increase of 55 percent to confront future wastewater treatment
facilities.
o Stabilizing pollutant removal capability. Although national flows
and pollutant levels reaching facilities are projected to increase
substantially, the Needs Survey indicates that the planned
capability of municipal facilities to remove pollutants efficiently
will increase only slightly and then level off. Unless reported
year 2000 pollution control measures are changed, future loads to
receiving waters would increase. Coupled with the constant or
decreasing assimilative capability of these waters, the increased
-31-
-------
load will limit water quality improvements when the total year 2000
needs are met. However, not addressing the current and year 2000
needs could result in severe water quality degradation of the
nation's rivers and streams.
o Decreasing level of identified needs. A comparison of per capita
needs for the population receiving new or improved wastewater
treatment suggests that the reported current and future needs may
be underestimated. In general, as needs are projected into the
future, they tend to shift from urban centers to nonurban areas
characterized by lower population density, where higher per capita
needs would be expected. However, both current and total year 2000
per capita needs are less than that reflected by the capital
investment prior to 1984. Eligible municipal treatment
improvements since the 1978 Needs Survey reflect a per capita
investment of $2,700 (nominal dollars). On the other hand,
satisfying current 1984 and total year 2000 needs will provide new
or improved service at a total per capita cost of only $1,215 and
$1,190 (1984 dollars), respectively. When planning for the new
facilities has advanced to the point of addressing specific
pollution control problems, the individual needs may increase
somewhat.
o Municipal loads in new places. The needs assessment shows a
potential for replacing large numbers of nondischarging treatment
systems with collection and treatment facilities to serve nonurban
growth areas. Most of these needs are based on very preliminary
State planning and are not very well documented. As a result,
surface-water discharges are assumed where they did not exist
before. In providing wastewater collection and treatment to these
areas, additional levels of treatment or alternate disposal
techniques may be necessary. Otherwise, the assimilative capacity
of many of the small streams adjacent to the currently nonsewered
areas would not be sufficient to accept a secondary effluent.
Change in Pollutant Removal Capability
Future treatment levels identified in the needs estimates do not
appear to be adequate to address the projected future increase in
pollutant loads. The existing pollutant removal capability of municipal
facilities will increase by about 6 percent nationwide as higher levels of
treatment are achieved in meeting current needs. Treatment levels will
increase again by approximately the same anount when total year 2000 needs
are met, but the increase will not be adequate to compensate for the
increased loads generated by population growth. Therefore, many of the
projected pollution control measures must be reevaluated. Otherwise,
water quality would only be maintained, but not improved, when the total
year 2000 needs are met.
-32-
-------
Change in Pollutant Load Distribution
The impacts of the increased loads will not be uniform throughout the
country. These impacts are influenced by variations in population and
geography, as well as by the size, type, designated use, and assimilative
capacity of the water body. Future water quality impacts vary from basin
to basin, according to how the States project their future growth patterns.
According to the projected location of future facilities identified in
the Needs Survey, small streams will receive a greater portion of the
future loads as the total needs through the year 2000 are met. The ratio
of small streams to large streams receiving municipal loads is predicted
to double in the future. Today's number of facilities discharging to
small headwater streams that are more than one half wastewater will
increase by 46 percent when total year 2000 needs are met.
Future loads discharged to streams with higher designated uses, such
as contact recreation and cold water fisheries, will increase by
69 percent at the time the total year 2000 municipal wastewater treatment
needs are achieved. The current and future distributions of pollutant
loads by stream use objective are displayed in Figure 8.
Reliability of the Pollutant Load Estimates
Just as the cost estimates for individual facilities have differing
levels of reliability, so do the predicted effluent loads. The needs in
Reliability Levels 1 and 2 are generally for urban areas with detailed
engineering plans that seek to minimize the negative impact of new
pollutant loads. On the other hand, many of the needs for presently
unsewered areas, as well as those for the future population, are
concentrated in nonurban areas, estimated mainly by generalized cost
curves with little, if any, documentation. These needs have the lowest
reliability (Reliability Level 3).
Included in these Reliability Level 3 needs are preliminary proposals
to replace septic tanks now in operation in 4,500 communities with new
treatment facilities. Without the benefit of site-specific planning, the
future discharge from many of these planned facilities has been assigned
to the downstream segment nearest the population center. Often, in these
cases, the assigned receiving stream has insufficient flow to accommodate
the assumed plant effluent load and could be impaired unless the
prospective treatment facilities are changed. Approximately 65 percent of
the future increase in small headwater receiving streams that are more
than one half wastewater is caused by facilities in Reliability Level 3.
Final facility plans for many of these communities may well call for
advanced treatment or nondischarging facilities such as land treatment,
containment ponds, or upgraded soil adsorption systems, to prevent adverse
water quality impacts.
-33-
-------
5000
4000
cl;
o
X
re
o>
Q.
in
•o
•o
(0
o
I
o
Q.
3000
2000
1000
0
m
m
I
•:•:•:•:•:•
m
8*i
1984
lii Current Needs Met
Year 2000 Needs Met
Fish and Wildlife
Drinking Water Recreation
Stream Use Objective
/
Nondegradation
FIGURE 8 DISTRIBUTION OF POLLUTANT LOADS BY STREAM USE OBJECTIVE
-------
How Will Pollutant Loads Affect Water Quality When Needs are met?
This report has looked closely at municipal pollutant loads and how
their size and distribution vary when current 1984 and total year 2000
needs are met. Furthermore, it has suggested how these changes may affect
the capability of receiving waters to assimilate the loads. Now we will
examine how future municipal loads to streams and rivers may impact
instream water quality. In the analysis we focused on evaluating the
effects of meeting current needs for facilities with current construction
or approved facility plans (Reliability Levels 1 and 2), because they have
benefited from detailed planning and are more likely to proceed as planned.
About 122,000 miles of river and stream segments in the United States
currently receive municipal wastewater discharges, all of which have State
water quality standards for dissolved oxygen. Out of the 122,000 miles,
approximately 89,000 miles are currently meeting the State water quality
standard for dissolved oxygen. Causes of the remaining miles not meeting
their dissolved oxygen standard may stem from muncipal, industrial, or
nonpoint sources of pollution. The State water quality standards used in
this report are currently under State review in accordance with
section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act.
Meeting the needs of the current population would improve, maintain,
or eliminate discharges from about 87,000 miles. Changes in the reported
pollution control measures for our year 2000 population must be
considered. Continued improvements in water quality will require
modification to some of the municipal wastewater treatment measures
projected for the year 2000 population.
Additional changes in planning are also necessary for the current and
year 2000 needs in Reliability Level 3. The planning for population
growth and additional sewer areas is very preliminary. Additional
safeguards, such as nondischarging treatment systems or higher treatment
levels, may be necessary to mitigate adverse water quality impacts.
-35-
-------
A Final Note
-36-
-------
Glossary of Terms
NOTE- Those definitions of terms that are also defined in EPA regulations
or other documents, e.g., 40 C.F.R. 35.2005, are intended to
summarize and simplify the definitions for the purposes of this
report, not to change the meaning of the terms.
-37-
-------
Advanced Treatment (Category II)
A level of treatment more stringent than secondary treatment. Advanced
treatment requires a greater than 85 percent reduction in conventional
pollutants, or a significant reduction in nonconventional pollutants
present in the wastewater treated by a facility. Needs reported in
Category II are necessary to attain incremental reductions in pollutant
concentrations beyond basic secondary treatment.
Ammonia (Ammonia Toxicity)
A biologically-active compound composed of hydrogen and nitrogen, which is
present in most waters and wastewaters. Ammonia is a normal biological
degradation product of nitrogenous organic matter. Depending on the
concentration of ammonia, and the temperature and alkalinity of rivers and
streams, ammonia can be highly harmful to fish and invertebrates.
Assimilative Capacity
Ability of a body of water to purify itself of pollutants.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
The amount of dissolved oxygen required to decompose organic matter in
water. It is a measure of pollution, since heavy wasteloads have a high
demand for oxygen.
Collector Sewers (Category IVA)
A pipe used to collect and carry sewage from an individual source to an
interceptor sewer which will convey the sewage to a treatment facility.
This category includes the costs of constructing new collector sewer
systems and appurtenances designed to collect raw wastewater, and to
protect public health from problems such as malfunctioning septic tanks.
-39-
-------
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) (Category V)
A discharge of a mixture of stormwater and domestic wastes which occurs
when the flow capacity of a sewer system is exceeded during a rainstorm.
Costs reported in this category are for grant-eligible facilities to
prevent or control periodic bypassing of untreated wastes from sewers
which convey a combination of sewage and stormwater to achieve water
quality objectives. This category does not include costs for overflow
control allocable to flood control or drainage improvement, or for
treatment or control of stormwaters in separate storm and drainage systems.
Conveyance Needs
Capital investment needed to construct, expand, or upgrade sewer systems.
Current Needs
Capital investment necessary to address the municipal wastewater treatment
needs of the current 1984 population of the United States. This does not
include any needs for future population growth.
Designated Use
A system of classifying water utilization in natural waterways that is
identified in State water quality standards. Uses can include cold water
fisheries, public water supply, fish and wildlife, or recreation.
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
A measure of the amount of oxygen available for biochemical activity in a
given amount of water. Adequate levels of DO are needed to support
aquatic life.
Effluent
Liquid that is discharged to the environment from a treatment plant after
completion of the treatment process.
-40-
-------
Effluent Standard
A limit on how much of a particular pollutant may be discharged by
industries and municipalties into the environment. Effluent standards are
set for each individual treatment facility. Minimum standards for all
plants are set by the Clean Water Act. More stringent standards are set
on a case-by-case basis whenever the protection of local water quality
warrants.
Eligible Need Categories
Categories of projects that are eligible for Federal financial assistance
under the Clean Water Act.
Estuaries
Regions of interaction between rivers and nearshore ocean waters, where
tidal action and river flow create a mixing of fresh and salt water.
Facility Plans
Plans that describe the design, processes, cost, and schedule for building
a municipal wastewater treatment and conveyance system.
Federal Grant Share
Level of Federal participation in a grant for municipal wastewater
treatment facilities. After October 1, 1984, the Federal share is
generally 55 percent, except for grandfathered phased/segmented projects
that may receive 75 percent, or innovative/alternative projects that may
receive a 20 percent bonus (not to exceed 85 percent). The Governor may
further reduce the grant share uniformly throughout the State.
-41-
-------
Grandfathered Projects
Phases or segments of projects that may receive 75 percent funding and
full reserve capacity after October 1, 1984, because a previous phase or
segment, described in the same facility planning document, received
funding prior to that date.
Hydrologic Flow Path
The path followed by water as it traverses the land.
Hydrologic Region
Any of 21 regions defined by the U.S. Geological Survey. The regions are
segregated by common hydrologic and geographic characteristics.
Infiltration/Inflow Correction (Category IIIA)
The penetration of water from the soil into a pipe. Included in this
category are costs for correction of sewer system infiltration/inflow
problems. Costs are also reported here for preliminary sewer system
analysis and for detailed sewer system evaluation surveys.
Influent
Wastewater flowing into a treatment plant.
Interceptor Sewers (Category IVB)
Tne major sewer receiving wastewater flows from collector sewers The
interceptor sewer carries sewage directly to the treatment plant or to
another interceptor. Included in this category are the costs for
constructing new interceptor sewers and transmission pumping stations
necessary for conveying wastewaters from collector sewer systems to
treatment facilities or to another interceptor.
-42-
-------
Lagoon
A shallow pond where sunlight, bacterial action, and oxygen work to purify
wastewater. Lagoons are widely used by small coirmunities to provide
wastewater treatment.
Low Flow
Naturally-occurring flow conditions that happen at a defined frequency
during dry weather. The Needs Survey's water quality analysis uses 7-day,
10-year low flow (7Q10), which means the average 7-day low flow occurs
once in 10 years.
Marine Waters
Salt-water environment of the oceans and estuaries.
Marine Combined Sewer Overflows
Combined sewer facilities affecting marine bays and estuaries.
Mean Flow
Average stream flow. An example is 30 days (or monthly) average flow.
Nonpoint Source
Pollution sources that are diffuse, from which pollutants run off the
land. The commonly-used categories for such sources are agriculture,
forestry, urban areas, mining, construction, dams and channels, land
disposal, and saltwater intrusion.
-43-
-------
Ocean Discharge Waiver
A variance from the secondary treatment requirements for discharges into
marine waters.
Phased/Segmented Project
A wastewater treatment works construction project that was divided in its
facilities plan into substantial, discrete portions for Federal funding or
construction bidding purposes. Phases or segments are generally built in
sequence and funded from consecutive yearly appropriations.
Potential Federal Investment
The estimate of the amount of Federal financial assistance that would be
necessary if all identified needs were satisfied and the Federal
government contributed its full share specified under the Clean Water Act.
Pollutant (Pollutant Load)
The quantity of organic matter in the effluent from a treatment plant
which may exert a detrimental effect on a receiving water if the
assimilative capacity of the water body is exceeded.
Pollution
A condition created by the presence of harmful or objectionable material
in water.
Replacement/Rehabilitation of Sewers (Category IIIB)
Reinforcement or replacement of structurally-deteriorating sewers. This
category includes cost estimates for rehabilitation of existing sewer
systems beyond those for normal maintenance. Costs are reported if the
corrective actions are necessary to maintain the total integrity of the
system.
-44-
-------
Reserve Capacity
Extra hydraulic capacity which is built into treatment plants and
interceptor sewers to accommodate flow increases due to future population
growth.
Secondary Treatment (Category I)
The minimum level of treatment which must be maintained by all treatment
facilities, except those facilities granted waivers under section 301(h)
of the Clean Water Act. Treatment levels are specified in terms of the
concentration of conventional pollutants in the wastewater being
discharged from a facility. Secondary treatment requires an 85 percent
reduction in conventional pollutant concentration in the wastewater
treated by a facility. Needs reported in Category I are necessary to
attain secondary treatment. Needs to attain incremental reductions in
conventional pollutant concentrations beyond secondary treatment
requirements are included in Category II.
Septic Tanks
Used to treat sewage on-site by individual houses. The septic tank is the
predominate method used to treat sewage from individual houses located in
unsewered areas.
Subbasin
A watershed or area drained by a river or stream and its tributaries,
which ultimately drains into a larger water body. For the purposes of the
Needs Survey water quality data collection and analysis, the continental
United States was divided into 314 subbasins, and each subbasin was given
a number and a name based on a major water body or other dominant
feature. Subbasin delineation follows the U.S. Geological Survey
hydrologic classification system based on the 18 hydrologic regions
covering the continental United States, which, in turn, include 2,100
catalog units and over 61,000 river and stream reaches and several
thousand coastline and lake shoreline segments. Each subbasin contains
one or more integral catalog units and is always contained within an
hydrologic region; many cross State lines. (Figure 1 in the 1984 Needs
Survey report depicts the hydrologic regions by name; Table C-14 lists
each subbasin by hydrologic region, number, and name.)
-45-
-------
Suspended Solids (SS)
That portion of the pollutants in wastewater that are in the form of very
small, solid particles. Suspended solids are removed through a
combination of settling and filtering operations.
Treatment Plant
A structure constructed to purify wastewater prior to discharging it to
the environment. The purification, or treatment, is accomplished by
subjecting the wastewater to a combination of physical, chemical, and
biological processes which reduce the concentration of contaminants
present in the wastewater.
Trickling Filter Unit Process
A biological treatment process where wastewater is purified by trickling
wastewater over rocks on which colonies of bacteria are growing. The
bacteria remove the organic impurities from the wastewater and utilize it
as a food source. Newer versions of the trickling filter process use
plastic cubes or redwood slats to support the bacteria colonies. Tnese
newer types of support media allow for greater removal of impurities than
the original rock media. The name trickling filter is a misnomer since no
filtering action in a physical sense occurs.
Unit Process Train
The combination of physical, chemical, and biological operations which are
used by a treatment plant to attain the required level of treatment.
Urbanized Area
Refers to the area surrounding cities which have more than 50,000
residents. The urbanized areas delineated by the Bureau of the Census are
used for Needs Survey purposes.
-46-
-------
Water Quality
The chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of water with
respect to its suitability for a particular purpose. For the purposes of
this report, suitable water quality is achieved when the water is capable
of fully supporting the State-designated use or water quality standard for
dissolved oxygen and ammonia.
Water Quality Standards
Requirements authorized by State law that consist of designated uses for
all waters and minimum acceptable levels of water quality that will permit
achievement of these uses. The criteria can be numerical or narrative.
Standards are developed in a public decision-making process and reviewed
and approved by EPA.
Water Quality Simulation (Water Quality Modeling)
Generally accepted water quality relationships and algorithms developed to
approximate the behavior of pollutants in streams and rivers. Water
quality factors include the stream's ability to reabsorb oxygen from the
atmosphere, physical features such as stream elevation, climatic
conditions such as temperature, and stream flow. Typically, water quality
impacts are estimated in terms of stream miles and in-stream chemical
composition, and are compared to both the State water quality standards
and the stream's assimilative capacity.
Year 2000 Needs
The capital investment necessary to address the publicly owned wastewater
treatment needs required to adequately serve the current population plus
population growth through the year 2000.
-47-
-------
1984 Needs Survey
Report to Congress
Appendix A
Cost Summaries
-------
Appendix A
Table of Contents
PAGE
INTRODUCTION [[[ A-5
CURRENT 1984 PUBLICLY OWNED WASTEWATER TREATMENT NEEDS ELIGIBLE
FOR FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT ............ A-6
Table A-l [[[ A-7
LEVELS OF RELIABILITY FOR CURRENT 1984 NEEDS ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT ........................ A-8
Table A-2 - Total Eligible Needs ............................... A-9
Table A-3 - Categories I, II, IIIA, IVB ........................ A-10
Table A-4 - Categories IIIB, IVA, V ............................ A-ll
FUTURE YEAR 2000 PUBLICLY OWNED WASTEWATER TREATMENT NEEDS ELIGIBLE
FOR FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT ............ A- 12
Table A-5 [[[ A-13
LEVELS OF RELIABILITY FOR FUTURE YEAR 2000 NEEDS ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT ........................ A- 14
Table A-6 - Total Eligible Needs ............................... A_15
Table A-7 - Categories I, II, IIIA, IVB .............. ......... A-16
Table A-8 - Categories IIIB, IVA, V ............................ A-17
FUTURE YEAR 2000 PUBLICLY OWNED WASTEWATER TREATMENT NEEDS
UNRESTRICTED BY THE RESERVE CAPACITY LIMITATIONS OF THE CLEAN
WATER ACT [[[ A_18
Table A-9
LEVELS OF RELIABILITY FOR FUTURE YEAR 2000 NEEDS UNRESTRICTED BY THE
RESERVE CAPACITY LIMITATIONS OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT ................... A-20
Table A-10 - Total Needs ....................................... A-21
Table A-ll - Categories I, II, IIIA, IVB ........... ............ A-22
Table A-12 - Categories IIIB, IVA, V ........................... A-23
-------
Appendix A
Table of Contents (cont'd)
PAGE
ADJUSTED COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW NEEDS A_26
Table A-14 A_27
ADJUSTED NEEDS TO CONTROL OR CORRECT COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
(CATEGORY V) BY BASIS OF ESTIMATE A_28
Table A-15 A_29
ADJUSTED NEEDS TO CONTROL OR CORRECT COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
(CATEGORY V) BY RECEIVING WATER TYPE A_30
Table A-16 A_31
A-4
-------
Introduction
This appendix contains State and national summaries of the various
cost estimates collected during the 1984 Needs Survey. Included are
summaries of eligible current 1984 needs, eligible year 2000 needs, and
total year 2000 needs by Needs Survey category. The eligible needs are
those portions of facilities eligible for Federal financial assistance
under the Clean Water Act. The total year 2000 needs include reserve
capacity beyond that eligible under section 204(a)(5). In addition,
tables are included that present the levels of reliability for each cost
estimate.
A-5
-------
Current 1984 Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Needs Eligible for
Federal Financial Assistance Under the Clean Water Act
Table A-l summarizes the EPA assessment of needs by State for the
current 1984 population. All values are given in millions of 1984 dollars.
The current 1984 needs represent the capital investment necessary to
build all publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities needed to brinq
our current population into compliance with the requirements of the Clean
Water Act. The current needs do not contain an allowance for future
population growth and migration. The assessment includes all planning
design, and construction activities eligible for federal financial
assistance under the Clean Water Act. All ineligible project costs are
excluded from the assessment.
A-6
-------
TABLE A-l
CURRENT 1984 PUBLICLY OWNED WASTEWATER TREATMENT NEEDS
ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT
(January 1984 dollars in millions)
Category of Need
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Mariana Islands
Puerto Rico
Trust Territories
Virgin Islands
TOTAL
Total
$ 811
166
533
345
4,140
147
1,709
274
299
2,885
989
369
218
3,906
1,978
950
654
1,317
980
884
1,108
4,539
3,131
1,274
509
2,784
61
174
94
1,003
4,562
99
14,701
1,037
23
4,400
395
974
4,319
754
732
96
1,688
2,733
377
271
1,305
2,888
1,903
1,639
36
40
19
62
1,634
96
25
I
$ 255
75
204
141
1,325
95
417
25
97
850
220
83
78
571
297
407
128
277
298
157
165
1,357
945
322
216
791
16
128
40
220
2,204
53
3,182
249
9
672
156
84
1,234
128
163
50
349
1,104
210
75
529
1,023
372
548
30
15
8
11
306
47
11
II
$ 77
0
64
36
39
9
75
1
171
214
143
0
2
256
106
87
1
86
22
2
502
108
229
77
56
3
2
0
22
3
130
1
168
90
0
491
56
13
258
8
34
12
77
160
48
28
40
16
17
30
1
0
0
1
3
1
0
II IA
$ 89
5
10
30
339
5
17
5
0
117
67
0
6
166
21
63
20
80
85
22
57
35
39
19
59
49
1
1
3
9
180
0
186
97
0
99
13
78
14
1
75
1
157
225
43
4
18
124
5
52
1
0
2
0
26
0
1
IIIB
$ 2
0
1
2
468
1
20
5
0
18
15
19
3
38
3
2
22
6
18
10
57
20
97
20
1
272
1
1
3
5
78
1
1,507
1
0
233
11
18
3
39
0
1
12
17
0
7
2
87
3
7
0
0
1
0
14
0
0
IVA
$ 303
21
150
101
1,204
19
570
31
0
1,216
241
222
93
160
242
111
86
487
380
201
220
874
494
119
105
247
25
21
20
292
289
35
2,522
436
4
597
87
267
1,134
176
276
3
409
517
51
53
367
659
710
161
2
7
6
34
919
33
9
IVB
$ 85
59
104
35
251
3
169
25
0
467
134
45
28
193
94
114
145
180
177
105
82
692
597
203
72
397
15
7
6
250
505
9
1,009
163
2
1,069
72
70
246
86
184
5
74
710
25
18
179
321
181
658
2
18
2
16
346
15
4
V
$ 0
6
0
0
514
15
441
182
31
3
169
0
8
2,522
1,215
166
252
201
0
387
25
1,453
730
514
0
1,025
1
16
0
224
1,176
0
6,127
1
8
1,239
0
444
1,430
316
0
24
610
0
0
86
170
658
615
183
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
$85,039 $23,022 $4,076 $2,821 $3,172 $18,018 $10,723 $23,207
A-7
-------
Levels of Reliability for Current 1984 Needs Eligible for
Federal Financial Assistance Under the Clean Water Act
Tables A-2, A-3, and A-4 summarize the results of EPA's reliability
analysis of the Needs Survey data for the current 1984 needs. Each table
breaks down the needs estimate into the following three levels of
reliability:
o Reliability Level 1: Needs based on specific facility planning
documents. This includes estimates for facilities both with and
without current works in operation.
o Reliability Level 2: Needs based on construction cost curves for
facilities that currently have some type of works in operation or
under construction. No facility planning has been completed for
the remaining needs.
o Reliability Level 3; Needs based on construction cost curves for
facilities that currently have no works in operation or under
construction. No facility planning has been completed.
The reliability analysis was performed to highlight the variations that
exist among the individual need estimates used to produce the State and
national totals.
Table A-2 summarizes the levels of reliability for the total current
1984 needs. Table A-3 summarizes the levels of reliability for
Categories I (Secondary Treatment), II (Advanced Treatment), IIIA
(Infiltration/Inflow), and IVB (New Interceptor Sewers), the categories of
need that are fully eligible for Federal financial assistance under the
Clean Water Act. Table A-4 summarizes the levels of reliability for
Categories IIIB (Replacement/Rehabilitation), IVA (New Collector Sewers),
and V (Combined Sewer Overflows), the categories that have limited
eligibility.
A-8
-------
TABLE A-2
LEVELS OF RELIABILITY FOR TOTAL CURRENT 1984 NEEDS
ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT
(January 1984 dollars in millions)
Total
Reliability Level
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Mariana Islands
Puerto Rico
Trust Territories
Virgin islands
$ 811
166
533
345
4,140
147
1,709
274
299
2,885
989
369
218
3,906
1,978
950
654
1,317
980
884
1,108
4,539
3,131
1,274
509
2,784
61
174
94
1,003
4,562
99
14,701
1,037
23
4,400
395
974
4,319
754
732
96
1,688
2,733
377
271
1,305
2,888
1,903
1,639
36
40
19
62
1,634
96
25
1
$ 411
71
294
121
2,412
84
862
43
299
1,661
645
142
102
3,726
427
604
335
608
585
302
861
3,129
1,957
1,087
326
2,141
46
128
56
406
2,717
50
10,961
616
18
2,364
233
416
653
634
439
42
707
1,528
247
141
513
2,100
523
1,425
25
40
19
10
849
44
14
2
$ 220
74
102
111
1,016
44
640
204
0
746
211
142
86
130
1,387
272
303
513
140
512
124
1,230
971
136
65
550
5
40
5
351
1,560
11
1,927
288
4
1,743
105
529
2,175
62
194
44
847
523
46
105
344
562
669
113
7
0
0
30
785
24
11
3
$ 180
21
137
113
712
19
207
27
0
478
133
85
30
50
164
74
16
196
255
70
123
180
203
51
118
93
10
6
33
246
285
38
1,813
133
1
293
57
29
1,491
58
99
10
134
682
84
25
448
226
711
101
4
0
0
22
0
28
0
TOTAL
$85,039
$51,199
$23,038
$10,802
A-9
-------
TABLE A-3
LEVELS OF RELIABILITY FOR CURRENT 1984 NEEDS
IN CATEGORIES I, II, IIIA, AND IVB
ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT
(January 1984 dollars in millions)
Total
Reliability Level
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Mariana Islands
Puerto Rico
Trust Territories
Virgin Islands
$ 506
139
382
241
1,954
112
677
57
269
1,648
564
128
114
1,185
518
671
293
625
582
286
805
2,193
1,809
622
403
1,240
34
135
72
482
3,020
62
4,545
599
11
2,331
298
246
1,752
223
455
68
657
2,198
326
125
768
1,485
574
1,287
33
33
12
28
682
63
15
1
$ 352
63
278
102
1,326
83
354
29
269
1,407
482
65
87
1,124
357
580
218
476
371
215
669
2,031
1,599
547
288
1,135
25
112
51
264
2,505
39
3,230
481
7
1,877
203
202
446
184
400
39
579
1,461
239
106
407
1,308
242
1,211
24
33
12
10
626
29
13
2
$ 90
67
28
67
263
20
126
9
0
164
27
27
9
42
79
57
65
54
96
33
71
95
137
46
42
54
4
19
4
50
276
4
337
74
3
331
57
29
503
19
19
20
41
351
41
6
62
110
34
42
7
0
0
16
56
20
2
3
$ 64
9
76
72
365
9
197
19
0
77
55
36
18
19
82
34
10
95
115
38
65
67
73
29
73
51
5
4
17
168
239
19
978
44
1
123
38
15
803
20
36
9
37
386
46
13
299
67
298
34
2
0
0
2
0
14
0
TOTAL
$40,642
$30,872
$4,305
$5,465
A-10
-------
TABLE A-4
LEVELS OF RELIABILITY FOR CURRENT 1984 NEEDS
IN CATEGORIES IIIB, IVA, AND V
ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT
(January 1984 dollars in millions)
Total
Reliability Level
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Mariana islands
Puerto Rico
Trust Territories
Virgin islands
$ 304
26
150
103
2,186
35
1,031
218
31
1,237
425
240
104
2,719
1,460
279
360
694
407
599
302
2,347
1,321
654
106
1,544
25
38
24
521
1,543
36
10,157
437
12
2,069
98
730
2,566
530
276
28
1,031
534
51
146
538
1,404
1,328
350
2
7
6
34
952
33
9
1
$ 59
8
15
18
1,086
1
507
15
31
254
162
76
23
2,601
70
24
116
131
214
87
191
1,099
363
541
38
1,006
20
16
6
142
212
10
7,731
134
11
487
32
215
207
449
38
3
128
67
8
34
107
792
280
212
1
7
6
0
223
14
0
2
$ 130
6
74
44
752
24
514
195
0
581
185
115
69
88
1,308
215
238
459
44
480
53
1,135
829
91
23
496
1
21
2
301
1,284
7
1,591
214
1
1,413
48
500
1,672
43
175
24
806
172
6
99
282
452
635
71
0
0
0
14
729
5
9
3
$ 115
12
61
41
348
10
10
8
0
402
78
49
12
30
82
40
6
104
149
32
58
113
129
22
45
42
4
1
16
78
47
19
835
89
0
169
18
15
687
38
63
1
97
295
37
13
149
160
413
67
1
0
0
20
0
14
0
TOTAL
$44,397
$20,328
$18,725
$5,344
A-ll
-------
Future Year 2000 Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Needs Eligible for
Federal Financial Assistance Under the Clean Water Act
Table A-5 summarizes EPA's assessment of needs for the year 2000
population. All needs listed in this table have been adjusted to reflect
the section 204(a)(5) reserve capacity limitations of the Clean Water
Act. Each facility not affected by the grandfathering provisions of the
Act was limited to its projected 1990 capacity. All values are given in
millions of 1984 dollars.
The future year 2000 needs represent the capital investment necessary
to build all publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities needed for
compliance with the requirements of the Clean Water Act through the
year 2000. This is the capital investment necessary to provide adequate
wastewater treatment facilities for the present 1984 population plus
population growth and migration for the next 16 years. The assessment
includes all planning, design, and construction activities considered
eligible for Federal financial assistance under the Clean Water Act. All
ineligible project costs, including that amount necessary to provide
reserve capacity needed after 1990 for nongrandfathered facilities, are
excluded from the assessment. The needs for Categories I, II, and IVB
have been reduced to reflect the reserve capacity limitations.
A-12
-------
TABLE A-5
FUTURE YEAR 2000 PUBLICLY OWNED WASTEWATER TREATMENT NEEDS
ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT
(January 1984 dollars in millions)
Category of Need
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Mariana islands
Puerto Rico
Trust Territories
Virgin islands
Total
$1,068
291
804
572
6,313
390
1,888
299
299
4,533
1,443
582
354
4,204
2,142
1,094
862
1,794
1,388
932
1,446
4,696
3,612
1,562
698
3,211
82
292
183
1,123
4,684
196
15,184
1,570
45
4,834
593
1,230
4,749
781
1,226
141
2,211
4,145
567
283
1,549
3,365
1,996
1,821
54
40
41
82
2,085
117
48
I
$ 282
140
375
261
2,318
222
432
26
97
1,352
352
148
137
707
353
431
173
316
466
166
272
1,404
1,250
474
268
1,049
20
177
84
240
2,257
108
3,267
283
23
781
252
147
1,307
132
317
67
424
1,663
319
76
604
1,037
390
616
34
15
23
13
394
59
16
II
$ 84
0
69
48
117
20
76
2
171
290
191
0
11
300
130
92
1
105
25
2
595
116
267
132
84
4
2
0
38
8
144
1
239
106
0
581
79
27
295
13
50
20
97
233
73
29
66
18
20
33
8
0
0
1
4
1
0
IIIA
$ 89
5
10
30
339
5
17
5
0
117
67
0
6
166
21
63
20
80
85
22
57
35
39
19
•59
49
1
1
3
9
180
0
186
97
0
99
13
78
14
1
75
1
157
225
43
4
18
124
5
52
1
0
2
0
26
0
1
IIIB
$ 2
0
1
2
468
1
20
5
0
18
15
19
3
38
3
2
22
6
18
10
57
20
97
20
1
272
1
1
3
5
78
1
1,507
1
0
233
11
18
3
39
0
1
12
17
0
7
2
87
3
7
0
0
1
0
14
0
0
IVA
$ 366
21
211
139
1,708
27
717
40
0
1,656
338
322
130
190
286
125
109
636
461
233
254
935
580
151
125
307
26
29
29
339
341
43
2,683
546
6
708
112
331
1,376
187
379
4
535
722
76
62
463
808
764
220
2
7
7
51
1,252
35
21
IVB
$ 245
119
138
92
849
100
185
39
0
1,097
311
93
59
281
134
215
285
450
333
112
186
733
649
252
161
505
31
68
26
298
508
43
1,175
536
8
1,193
126
185
324
93
405
24
376
1,285
56
19
226
633
199
710
9
18
8
17
375
22
10
V
$ 0
6
0
0
514
15
441
182
31
3
169
0
8
2,522
1,215
166
252
201
0
387
25
1,453
730
514
0
1,025
1
16
0
224
1,176
0
6,127
1
8
1,239
0
444
1,430
316
0
24
610
0
0
86
170
658
615
183
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL
$101,794 $28,616 $5,118 $2,821 $3,172 $22,231 $16,629 $23,207
A-13
-------
Levels of Reliability for Future Year 2000 Needs Eligible for
Federal Financial Assistance Under the Clean Water Act
Tables A- 6, A-7, and A-8 summarize the results of EPA's reliabilitv
analysis of the eligible year 2000 Needs Survey data. AUnSdJ listed in
™™ ^f.^^" Adjusted to reflect the section 204 (a)"1freservf
capacity limitations of the Clean Water Act. Each table breaks lo^ 1L
needs estimate into the following three levels of reliability:
o Reliability te vel 1 ; Needs based on specific facility planning
documents. This includes estimates for facilities both JS^Sa
without current works in operation.
°
i.iST1 " ^ tased °n const^tion cost curves for
that currently have no works in operation or under
construction. No facility planning has been completed!
The reliability analysis was performed to highlight the variations that
eXl*einail'
TSnn A-6Jsummarizes the levels of reliability for the eligible
year 2000 needs. Table A-7 summarizes the levels of relilbiliL for
Categories I (Secondary Treatment), II (Advanced Treatment) in A
(infilitration/lnflow) , and IVB (New Interceptor Sewer s^th^e categories
ctaTwaSr ACT "Sbl ^1^ ^ ^^ f™™ial -si^ancf Sde /the
Clean Water Act. Table A-8 sunmarizes the levels of reliabilitv for
Categories IIIB (Replacement/Rehabilitation), IVA (New OoUecto? 2w
ned SeWer °Verflows>' ^ ^egories of need
A-14
-------
TABLE A-6
LEVELS OF RELIABILITY FOR FUTURE YEAR 2000 NEEDS
ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT
(January 1984 dollars in millions)
Total
Reliability Level
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Mariana islands
Puerto Rico
Trust Territories
Virgin Islands
$1,068
291
804
572
6,313
390
1,888
299
299
4,533
1,443
582
354
4,204
2,142
1,094
862
1,794
1,388
932
1,446
4,696
3,612
1,562
698
3,211
82
292
183
1,123
4,684
196
15,184
1,570
, 45
4,834
593
1,230
4,749
781
1,226
141
2,211
4,145
567
283
1,549
3,365
1,996
1,821
54
40
41
82
2,085
117
48
1
$ 592
149
472
266
3,507
248
889
53
299
2,711
959
247
189
3,992
512
656
420
924
886
323
1,000
3,247
2,204
1,326
459
2,480
62
193
112
484
2,844
134
11,189
1,018
35
2,649
376
577
711
652
828
83
1,035
1,998
345
145
593
2,182
561
1,536
42
40
41
17
993
47
33
2
$ 278
117
162
172
1,888
117
790
217
0
1,130
312
213
128
151
1,439
363
417
639
174
538
309
1,262
1,154
178
96
621
9
93
26
375
1,561
17
1,993
390
9
1,846
150
616
2,341
67
277
48
1,008
1,251
116
109
445
881
681
151
8
0
0
33
1,092
38
15
3
$ 198
25
170
134
918
25
209
29
0
692
172
122
37
61
191
75
25
231
328
71
137
187
254
58
143
110
11
6
45
264
279
45
2,002
162
1
339
67
37
1,697
62
121
10
168
896
106
29
511
302
754
134
4
0
0
32
0
32
0
TOTAL
$101,794
$60,565
$28,511
$12,718
A-15
-------
TABLE A-7
LEVELS OF RELIABILITY FOR FUTURE YEAR 2000 NEEDS
IN CATEGORIES I, II, IIIA, AND IVB
ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT
(January 1984 dollars in millions)
Total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawa i i
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Mariana Islands
Puerto Rico
Trust Territories
Virgin Islands
$ 700
264
592
431
3,623
347
710
72
269
2,855
921
242
212
1,454
638
801
479
951
909
302
1,110
2,288
2,206
877
572
1,608
54
245
151
555
3,090
152
4,867
1,022
30
2,654
470
436
1,941
238
848
111
1,055
3,406
492
128
914
1,812
614
1,411
51
33
33
31
799
82
26
1
$ 527
140
455
247
2,419
248
374
36
269
2,423
793
148
163
1,383
441
632
302
789
669
229
801
2,119
1,824
785
420
1,468
42
177
106
334
2,614
123
3,432
881
21
2,157
344
342
488
202
775
78
902
1,930
335
110
483
1,387
276
1,319
40
33
33
18
747
33
24
$ 113
111
55
108
780
88
140
16
0
340
67
44
29
50
109
136
159
69
113
38
242
108
304
62
68
84
7
64
24
59
254
8
370
96
8
372
85
78
597
16
38
24
113
1,004
106
7
116
349
41
52
8
0
0
12
52
33
2
3
$ 60
13
82
76
424
11
196
20
0
92
61
50
20
21
88
33
18
93
127
35
67
61
78
30
84
56
5
4
21
162
222
21
1,065
45
1
125
41
16
856
20
35
9
40
472
51
11
315
76
297
40
3
0
0
1
0
16
0
TOTAL
$53,184
$39,890
$7,428
$5,866
A-16
-------
TABLE A-8
LEVELS OF RELIABILITY FOR FUTURE YEAR 2000 NEEDS
IN CATEGORIES IIIB, IVA, AND V
ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT
(January 1984 dollars in millions)
Reliability Level
Total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Mariana islands
Puerto Rico
Trust Territories
Virgin Islands
$ 368
27
211
142
2,692
44
1,178
227
31
1,677
522
341
141
2,750
1,504
293
384
843
479
630
336
2,408
1,407
686
125
1,604
28
47
32
568
1,595
43
10,317
550
14
2,180
123
793
2,809
542
379
28
1,157
739
76
154
634
1,552
1,381
410
2
7
8
51
1,285
35
21
1
$ 66
8
17
19
1,090
1
515
17
31
286
166
100
25
2,609
71
24
118
135
216
95
198
1,128
381
542
39
1,013
20
17
6
149
231
10
7,757
140
13
492
32
234
223
449
54
3
135
67
11
34
109
794
284
216
1
7
8
0
245
14
8
2
$ 164
7
107
65
1,108
29
650
201
0
790
245
169
99
101
1,330
227
259
570
61
500
68
1,154
850
116
28
537
2
28
2
317
1,307
9
1,623
293
1
1,474
65
538
1,744
51
239
24
894
248
9
102
329
532
640
100
0
0
0
21
1,040
5
13
3
$ 138
12
87
58
494
14
13
9
0
601
111
72
17
40
103
42
7
138
202
35
70
126
176
28
58
54
6
2
24
102
57
24
937
117
0
214
26
21
842
42
86
1
128
424
56
18
196
226
457
94
1
0
0
30
0
16
0
TOTAL
$48,610
$20,673
$21,085
$6,852
A-17
-------
Future Year 2000 Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Needs Unrestricted by
the Reserve Capacity Limitations of the Clean Water Act
E
•s
A-18
-------
TABLE A-9
FUTURE YEAR 2000 PUBLICLY OWNED WASTEWATER TREATMENT NEEDS
UNRESTRICTED BY THE RESERVE CAPACITY LIMITATIONS
OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
(January 1984 dollars in millions)
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Mariana islands
Puerto Rico
Trust Territories
Virgin Islands
Total
$1,220
349
931
638
6,674
461
1,968
303
299
5,362
1,652
636
385
4,344
2,200
1,161
953
1,960
1,598
971
1,538
4,928
3,729
1,622
805
3,398
87
309
196
1,211
4,934
208
15,489
1,744
47
5,075
655
1,272
4,955
801
1,424
150
2,414
4,770
718
287
1,670
3,781
2,084
1,876
66
62
42
99
2,219
133
49
I
$ 371
175
457
301
2,574
270
466
27
97
1,803
449
188
158
794
394
477
225
372
596
187
302
1,480
1,322
511
335
1,138
23
191
92
283
2,433
115
3,441
351
25
913
293
160
1,449
145
402
73
507
2,029
419
79
659
1,277
444
637
43
25
24
17
470
69
17
II
$ 109
0
71
53
139
25
89
2
171
349
213
0
12
321
136
97
1
114
30
2
610
121
280
136
96
5
2
0
38
8
166
1
266
119
0
617
86
29
316
14
58
20
117
267
92
30
80
23
22
37
8
0
0
1
6
1
0
IIIA
$ 89
5
10
30
339
5
17
5
0
117
67
0
6
166
21
63
20
80
85
22
57
35
39
19
59
49
1
1
3
9
180
0
186
97
0
99
13
78
14
1
75
1
157
225
43
4
18
124
5
52
1
0
2
0
26
0
1
IIIB
$ 2
0
1
2
468
1
20
5
0
18
15
19
3
38
3
2
22
6
18
10
57
20
97
20
1
272
1
1
3
5
78
1
1,507
1
0
233
11
18
3
39
0
1
12
17
0
7
2
87
3
7
0
0
1
0
14
0
0
IVA
$ 366
21
211
139
1,708
27
717
40
0
1,656
338
322
130
190
286
125
109
636
461
233
254
935
580
151
125
307
26
29
29
339
341
43
2,683
546
6
708
112
331
1,376
187
379
4
535
722
76
62
463
808
764
220
2
7
7
51
1,252
35
21
IVB
$ 283
142
181
113
932
118
218
42
Q
1,416
401
107
68
313
145
231
324
551
408
130
233
884
681
271
189
602
•j •}
J J
71
31
343
560
48
1,279
629
Q
1,266
140
212
367
99
510
27
476
1,510
88
19
278
804
231
740
12
30
30
431
28
10
V
$ 0
6
0
0
514
15
441
182
-3 1
J J.
3
169
0
8
2,522
1,215
166
252
201
0
387
25
1,453
730
514
0
1,025
1
16
0
224
1,176
0
6,127
1
g
1,239
0
444
1,430
316
0
*) A
2. 4
610
0
0
86
170
658
615
183
0
0
0
20
0
0
TOTAL
$108,912 $32,574 $5,606 $2,821 $3,172 $22,231 $19,301 $23,207
A-19
-------
Levels of Reliability for Future Year 2000 Needs Unrestricted
by the Reserve Capacity Limitations of the Clean Water Act
Tables A-10, A-ll, and A-12 summarize the results of EPA's reliability
?nSyS1S^f ^ NeedS SUrVSY data for ** total year 2000 needs. SB ^
tables address the reliability of the total year 2000 needs, unrestricted
^LiT? t!fS 0? rSf rVe caPaci^- Each table breaks down the needs
estimate into three levels of reliability as follows:
^gility I*** .1; Needs based on specific facility planning
documents. This includes estimates for facilities both with and
without current works in operation.
Reliability level 2; Needs based on construction cost curves for
facilities that currently have some type of works in operation or
under construction. No facility planning has been completed for
the remaining needs.
Reliability level 3; Needs based on construction cost curves for
facilities that currently have no works in operation or under
construction. No facility planning has been completed.
St^^oH? an?YSi3 "as P!rformed to highlight the variations that
exist among the individual need estimates used to produce the State and
n
national totals.
Table A-10 summarizes the levels of reliability for the total
year 2000 needs. Table A-ll summarizes the levels of reliability for
Categories I (Secondary Treatment) , II (Advanced Treatment) , IIIA
(Infiltration/Inflow) , and IVB (New Interceptor Sewers) , the cateqories of
?? ^ ar? fUllY ellgible f°r Federal fi"ancial assistance unde? the
Clean Water Act. Table A-12 summarizes the levels of reliability for
^T^V1;? ^Placement/!tehabilitation) , IVA (New Collector Sewers) ,
and V Combined Sewer Overflows), the categories that have limited
eligibility.
A-20
-------
TABLE A-10
LEVELS OF RELIABILITY FOR FUTURE YEAR 2000 NEEDS
UNRESTRICTED BY THE RESERVE CAPACITY LIMITATIONS
OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
(January 1984 dollars in millions)
Total
Reliability Level
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Mariana islands
Puerto Rico
Trust Territories
Virgin Islands
$1,220
349
931
638
6,674
461
1,968
303
299
5,362
1,652
636
385
4,344
2,200
1,161
953
1,960
1,598
971
1,538
4,928
3,729
1,622
805
3,398
87
309
196
1,211
4,934
208
15,489
1,744
47
5,075
655
1,272
4,955
801
1,424
150
2,414
4,770
718
287
1,670
3,781
2,084
1,876
66
62
42
99
2,219
133
49
1
$ 700
167
567
308
3,632
277
953
56
299
3,350
1,123
266
209
4,120
541
709
475
1,066
1,013
342
1,071
3,424
2,289
1,378
517
2,636
66
198
116
519
3,044
141
11,358
1,146
36
2,814
413
606
732
669
1,016
87
1,216
2,232
445
144
659
2,489
609
1,567
53
62
42
19
1,110
60
33
2
$ 296
153
177
185
2,059
156
806
218
0
1,276
337
224
134
160
1,451
374
444
644
235
553
324
1,295
1,176
185
114
644
9
104
31
388
1,594
19
2,073
426
10
1,910
167
626
2,443
70
277
52
1,021
1,513
146
110
476
969
686
167
9
0
0
47
1,109
39
16
3
$ 224
29
187
145
983
28
209
29
0
736
192
146
42
64
208
78
34
250
350
76
143
209
264
59
174
118
12
7
49
304
296
48
2,058
172
1
351
75
40
1,780
62
131
11
177
1,025
127
33
535
323
789
142
4
0
0
33
0
34
0
TOTAL
$108,912
$65,189
$30,127
$13,596
A-21
-------
TABLE A-ll
LEVELS OF RELIABILITY FOR FUTURE YEAR 2000 NEEDS
IN CATEGORIES I, II, IIIA, AND IVB
UNRESTRICTED BY THE RESERVE CAPACITY LIMITATIONS
OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
(January 1984 dollars in millions)
Total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Mariana Islands
Puerto Rico
Trust Territories
Virgin Islands
$ 851
322
720
495
3,985
418
791
76
269
3,685
1,130
296
244
1,593
696
868
570
1,116
1,119
342
1,202
2,520
2,323
937
679
1,795
59
263
168
642
3,339
164
5,173
1,195
33
2,895
532
479
2,147
258
1,045
121
1,257
4,030
642
131
1,035
2,228
701
1,465
63
55
34
49
932
98
27
1
$ 633
158
551
288
2,543
277
438
39
269
3,064
958
166
183
1,510
471
684
358
929
796
258
873
2,296
1,908
837
477
1,624
45
182
110
369
2,813
130
3,602
1,008
22
2,322
382
372
510
219
960
83
1,081
2,164
434
110
549
1,695
323
1,351
51
55
34
19
863
46
24
$ 132
147
69
120
953
127
156
17
0
486
91
56
36
59
121
148
185
75
174
43
256
141
327
69
86
107
8
76
33
71
287
10
450
133
10
436
102
88
699
19
40
28
127
1,265
137
7
146
436
46
67
9
0
0
27
69
34
3
3
$ 86
17
100
87
489
14
197
20
0
135
81
74
25
24
104
36
27
112
149
41
73
83
88
31
116
64
6
5
25
202
239
24
1,121
54
1
137
48
19
938
20
45
10
49
601
71
14
340
97
332
47
3
0
0
3
0
18
0
TOTAL
$60,302
$44,516
$9,044
$6,742
A-22
-------
TABLE A-12
LEVELS OF RELIABILITY FOR FUTURE YEAR 2000 NEEDS
IN CATEGORIES IIIB, IVA, AND V
UNRESTRICTED BY THE RESERVE CAPACITY LIMITATIONS
OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
(January 1984 dollars in millions)
Reliability Level
Total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Mariana islands
Puerto Rico
Trust Territorries
Virgin Islands
$ 368
27
215
142
2,692
44
1,178
227
31
1,677
522
341
141
2,750
1,504
293
384
843
479
630
336
2,408
1,407
686
125
1,604
28
47
32
568
1,595
43
10,317
546
14
2,180
123
793
2,809
542
379
28
1,157
739
76
154
634
1,552
1,381
410
2
7
8
51
1,285
35
21
1
$ 66
8
21
19
1,090
1
515
17
31
286
166
100
25
2,609
71
24
118
135
216
95
198
1,128
381
542
39
1,013
20
17
6
149
231
10
7,757
136
13
492
32
234
223
449
54
3
135
67
11
34
109
794
284
216
1
7
8
0
245
14
8
2
$ 164
7
107
65
1,108
29
650
201
0
790
245
169
99
101
1,330
227
259
570
61
500
68
1,154
850
116
28
537
2
28
2
317
1,307
9
1,623
293
1
1,474
65
538
1,744
51
239
24
894
248
9
102
329
532
640
100
0
0
0
21
1,040
5
13
3
$ 138
12
87
58
494
14
13
9
0
601
111
72
17
40
103
42
7
138
202
35
70
126
176
28
58
54
6
2
24
102
57
24
937
117
0
214
26
21
842
42
86
1
128
424
56
18
196
226
457
94
1
0
0
30
0
16
0
TOTAL
$48,610
$20,673
$21,085
$6,852
A-23
-------
Unadjusted Needs to Control or Correct Combined Sewer
Overflows (Category V)
?"13 presents tte ^adjusted assessment of eligible needs for
"
A-24
-------
TABLE A-13
UNADJUSTED NEEDS TO CONTROL OR CORRECT COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
(CATEGORY V)
(January 1984 dollars in millions)
Alaska
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Puerto Rico
TOTAL
Urban
Unadjusted
$ 0
0
6
282
305
0
0
30
0
2
1,595
92
339
131
398
0
1,482
1,079
9
558
0
0
289
1,752
1,046
0
0
1,587
718
2,086
0
39
0
0
267
308
834
0
0
Nonurban
Unadjusted
$ 21
0
41
43
26
0
12
6
21
143
894
391
5
422
506
67
325
167
32
32
1
9
120
397
1,405
3
0
830
23
813
51
7
0
294
28
156
475
32
0
Other
$ 0
514
0
268
0'
31
0
150
2
2,479
43
0
57
3
13
6
516
65
500
697
0
13
24
59
5,122
0
8
91
27
1
301
0
610
0
9
437
0
174
20
$15,234
$7,798
$12,240
Total CSO
Unadjusted
$ 21
514
47
593
331
31
12
186
23
2,624
2,532
483
401
556
917
73
2,323
1,311
541
1,287
1
22
433
2,208
7,573
3
8
2,508
768
2,900
352
46
610
294
304
901
1,309
206
20
$35,272
A-25
-------
Adjusted Combined Sewer Overflow Needs
Table A-14 presents the adjusted assessment of eligible needs for the
control or correction of combined sewer overflows. To improve their
reliability, the 1984 CSO needs estimates were adjusted to reflect recent
facilities planning experience, including the discrepancy between higher
urban and lower nonurban costs. The rule-of-thumb estimates were
significantly higher than planning estimates. As a result, the urban and
nonurban rule-of-thumb estimates were reduced by approximately 43 percent
and 71 percent, respectively. The unadjusted CSO needs can be found in
Table A-13.
Presented in this table is a State-by-State summary of the three
components of the 1984 CSO need after adjustment: urban, nonurban, and
other. Also, the total unadjusted and adjusted Category V estimates are
presented for comparison. The adjusted urban component includes the
adjusted rule-of-thumb needs estimates for all combined sewer facilities
located within an urban area, where a central city population of at least
50,000 is surrounded by closely settled areas. The adjusted nonurban
component includes the adjusted rule-of-thumb needs estimates for the
combined sewers not located within urban areas. The "Other" component
includes all CSO needs estimates based on facilities plans or other State
planning documents; none of these estimates was adjusted. All costs are
in millions of 1984 dollars. States without CSO needs are not shown.
A-26
-------
TABLE A-14
ADJUSTED COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW NEEDS
(January 1984 dollars in millions)
Alaska
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Puerto Rico
TOTAL
Urban
Adjusted
$ 0
0
3
161
175
0
0
17
0
1
912
52
194
75
227
0
843
616
5
319
0
0
165
1,002
597
0
0
906
410
1,192
0
22
0
0
153
176
477
0
0
Nonurban
Adjusted
$ 6
0
12
12
7
0
3
2
6
42
260
114
1
123
147
19
94
49
9
9
1
3
35
115
408
1
0
242
7
237
15
2
0
86
8
45
138
9
0
Other
$ 0
514
0
268
0
31
0
150
2
2,479
43
0
57
3
13
6
516
65
500
697
0
13
24
59
5,122
0
8
91
27
1
301
0
610
0
9
437
0
174
20
Total CSO
Adjusted
$ 6
514
15
441
182
31
3
169
8
2,522
1,215
166
252
201
387
25
1,453
730
514
1,025
1
16
224
1,176
6,127
1
8
1,239
444
1,430
316
24
610
86
170
658
615
183
20
Total CSO
Unadjusted
$ 21
514
47
593
331
31
12
186
23
2,624
2,532
483
401
556
917
73
2,323
1,311
541
1,287
1
22
433
2,208
7,573
3
8
2,508
768
2,900
352
46
610
294
304
901
1,309
206
20
Difference
$ 15
0
32
152
149
0
9
17
15
102
1,317
317
149
355
530
48
870
581
27
262
0
6
209
1,032
1,446
2
0
1,269
324
1,470
36
22
0
208
134
243
694
23
0
$8,700
$2,267
$12,240
$23,207
$35,272
$12,065
A-27
-------
Adjusted Needs to Control or Correct Combined Sewer Overflows
(Category V) by Basis of Estimate
Table A-15 presents the adjusted 1984 assessment of eligible needs for
the control or correction of combined sewer overflows by basis of
estimate. If an adequate State plan was available, it was used to
establish the Category V need. Otherwise, Category V needs were
established by a computerized rule-of-thumb approach based on one of four
control levels: aesthetics, public health, fish and wildlife, and
recreation. The control level chosen was a function of the designated
receiving water use and is defined below. The rare exception occurred
when the rule-of-thumb cost of sewer separation was less than the cost of
the selected control level. In this case, the Category V needs for that
facility were based on sewer separation. States without Category V needs
are not shown. ^ *
Included in this table are the rule-of-thumb Category V estimates for
the various levels of control. They are defined as follows:
o Asthetics; The pollutant control objectives are to remove
floatables, coarse debris, and 40 percent of the annual biological
oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids (SS) load generated by a
combined sewer system. The use objectives of waters receiving this
level of combined sewer discharges are navigation, and agricultural
or industrial water supply.
o Public Health; The pollutant control objectives are based on the
use 01 an optimum combination of CSO storage with pumping and
chlorination to remove 90 percent of the fecal coliform bacteria.
The use objectives of waters receiving this level of combined sewer
discharges are domestic water supply, partial body contact
recreation, and noncontact recreation.
o Fish and Wildlife; The pollutant control objectives are based on a
cost-effective mix of CSO control technologies that provide from 40
to 90 percent removal of BOD and SS, depending on site-specific
conditions. Control technologies considered include
streetsweeping, combined sewer flushing, and storage/treatment
systems. The use objectives of waters receiving this level of
combined sewer discharges are warm water fisheries, cold water
fisheries, and general fish and wildlife.
o Recreation; The pollutant control objectives are based on a cost-
effective mix of CSO control technologies designed to kill
95 percent of the annual CSO fecal coliform load and to provide 40
to 90 percent removal of BOD and SS, depending on site-specific
conditions. Control technologies considered include
streetsweeping, combined sewer flushing, and storage/treatment
systems. The use objectives of waters receiving this level of
combined sewer discharges are general recreation, full body contact
recreation and shellfish protection.
A-28
-------
ADJUSTED SEEM T0 COMTROT. ®R COJWECT C9WBIMBB
(CATEGORY V) BY BASIS OF ESTIMATE
(January 1964 dollars in milli«*e)
©VH.RFLSW6
Alaska
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Puerto Rico
W
8
0
9
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
@
0
8
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
e
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
Public
$ 8
0
9
8
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
6
9
9
8
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
726
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
8
0
9
0
0
0
0
Fish aad
» 8
8
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
944
39
195
8
147
9
14
655
0
88
0
0
17
843
20
1
0
3
0
1,3-81
15
24
9
8
142
0
0
0
0
aMnrti.
t 6
8
15
154
178
8
3
16
4
36
218
127
9
19>6
63
1«
917
1
12
234
1
3
181
251
224
0
0
1,006
415
36
0
9
&
62
18
152
438
9
0
TOTAL
$1
$738
$4,545 $4,997
Sewer
$ 8
IS
4
8
9
0
2
7
18
e
8
8
164
8
6
9
2
0
0
0
2
23
35
0
0
130
2
12
16
1
69
177
0
0
$686
e
514
8
2£t
0
31
9
150
2
2,479
43
8
57
3
13
s
516
65
5«6
697
0
13
24
59
5,122
0
8
91
27
1
3*1
9
618
8
9
437
0
174
20
$ 6
514
15
441
182
31
3
169
8
2,522
1,215
166
252
291
387
25
1,453
730
514
1,925
1
16
224
1,176
6,127
1
8
1,239
444
1,430
316
24
610
86
170
658
615
183
20
$12,240 $23,207
-------
Adjusted Needs to Control or Correct Combined Sewer
Overflows (Category V) by Receiving Water Type
Table A-16 presents the 1984 assessment of eligible needs for the
control or correction of combined sewer overflows by the type of major
water body receiving CSO discharges. This classification for streams,
rivers, lakes, estuaries, and oceans is identified directly on the Needs
Survey data collection form. States without Category V needs are not
shown. For the purposes of this table, the definition of each receiving
water type is as follows:
o Streams; A course of running water usually flowing in a
particular direction in a definite channel with a mean depth less
than 10 feet.
o River; A large stream of water that serves as the natural
drainage channel with a mean depth equal to or greater than 10
feet.
o Lake; An inland body of water of considerable size occupying a
hollow on the earth's surface.
o Estuary; A passage or inlet in which the tide meets a river
current.
o Ocean; A nontidal body of salt water covering a large surface
area of the globe.
A-30
-------
TABLE A-16
ADJUSTED NEEDS TO CONTROL OR CORRECT COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
(CATEGORY V) BY RECEIVING WATER TYPE
(January 1984 dollars in millions)
Alaska
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Puerto Rico
TOTAL
Streams
$ 0
0
11
0
0
0
0
127
0
885
171
19
0
0
2
3
119
44
0
5
0
0
5
23
118
0
0
122
0
323
0
0
0
1
4
0
55
0
20
Rivers
$ 0
0
4
31
0
0
0
39
8
1,637
984
147
252
201
132
14
439
680
514
1,020
1
16
205
143
1,174
1
8
1,056
440
483
0
24
610
66
31
287
560
183
0
Lakes
$ 0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
60
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
0
61
0
112
0
0
0
19
0
1
0
0
0
Estuaries
$ 6
396
0
410
182
31
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
251
8
895
0
0
0
0
14
1,010
4,816
0
0
0
4
512
316
0
0
0
135
370
0
0
0
$2,057 $11,390
$281 $9,359
Oceans
$ 0
118
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$120
Totals
$ 6
514
15
441
182
31
3
169
8
2,522
1,215
166
252
201
387
25
1,453
0
730
514
1,025
1
16
224
1,176
6,127
1,239
444
1,430
316
24
610
86
170
658
615
183
20
$23,207
A-31
-------
1984 Needs Survey
Report to Congress
Appendix B
Cost Summaries from the 1982 Needs Survey
-------
Appendix B
Table of Contents
PAGE
CURRENT 1982 AND YEAR 2000 NEEDS REPORTED IN THE 1982 NEEDS SURVEY .. B-4
Table B-l - Current 1982 Needs B-5
Table B-2 - Year 2000 Needs B-6
B-3
-------
Current 1982 and Future Year 2000 Needs Reported in the 1982 Needs Survey
Tables B-l and B-2 summarize the results of the EPA1 s 1982 Needs Survey
Current 1982 needs are listed in Table B-l and total year 2000 needs are
listed in Table B-2. These were Tables 1 and 21, respectively, in Appendix C
* 82 Needs Survey Report to Congress. All values are given in millions
dollars.
4-u ™ tables are Provided as a convenience to those who wish to compare
the 1982 and the 1984 Survey results. These tables are comparable to
Tables A-l and A-9 of the 1984 Report. Please note that Tables B-l and B-2
are given in millions of 1982 dollars. To convert from 1982 to 1984 dollars
a factor of 1.0923 can be used for Categories I and II, and a factor of 1.1246
can be used for Categories IIIA, IIIB, IVA, IVB, and V.
B-4
-------
TABLE B-l
CURRENT 1982 NEEDS REPORTED IN THE 1982 NEEDS SURVEY
(January 1982 dollars in millions)
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Mariana Islands
Puerto Rico
Trust Territories
Virgin Islands
Total
Needs
$ 801
250
278
289
3,204
194
1,933
372
83
2,279
1,269
334
323
3,532
3,705
1,154
856
2,499
792
1,321
831
4,747
4,522
1,105
508
2,317
235
232
109
1,160
5,426
122
16,128
1,070
34
6,326
276
1,275
5,354
628
673
130
1,454
2,053
212
475
1,468
2,767
2,437
1,843
69
37
19
39
956
77
27
Category of
I
$ 258
101
115
122
986
118
323
20
0
809
262
77
87
322
221
396
156
295
205
165
107
1,234
984
353
230
644
27
130
38
225
1,847
73
3,290
300
13
694
105
95
904
174
130
65
301
833
94
84
484
466
358
518
40
14
8
10
174
41
11
II
$ 80
0
1
21
50
4
44
5
9
142
129
0
5
508
110
77
1
84
7
2
227
103
223
75
45
2
1
0
24
5
279
1
179
127
0
463
6
21
184
12
30
9
128
99
38
20
64
17
20
86
3
0
0
1
3
1
0
IIIA
$ 88
2
1
19
62
6
24
1
6
77
93
0
7
178
48
86
49
104
77
18
14
21
73
28
55
38
1
1
3
10
227
0
186
84
1
135
14
71
16
3
76
3
154
182
11
8
18
116
4
32
1
0
1
0
19
0
1
IIIB
$ 5
1
1
2
156
1
17
2
0
0
15
17
2
55
3
1
22
5
16
6
131
18
99
17
1
49
1
1
4
5
2
1
3,760
1
1
21
10
18
1
30
0
1
4
30
0
3
2
63
3
80
0
0
1
0
12
0
0
Need
IVA
$ 296
84
133
93
1,098
19
551
32
0
871
231
191
78
181
248
110
97
399
334
197
226
807
506
129
115
210
35
20
33
264
441
38
2,327
404
3
669
85
314
1,315
154
267
3
399
419
48
69
391
529
700
211
3
7
7
15
330
24
12
IVB
$ 74
44
27
32
286
4
199
20
0
371
124
49
28
192
108
57
138
161
153
103
51
574
480
182
62
327
6
7
7
207
615
9
766
151
3
465
56
82
288
77
170
5
121
469
18
30
230
284
184
546
3
16
2
13
246
11
3
V
$ 0
18
0
0
566
42
775
292
68
9
415
0
116
2,096
2,967
427
393
1,451
0
830
75
1,990
2,157
321
0
1,047
164
73
0
444
2,015
0
5,620
3
13
3,879
0
674
2,646
178
0
44
347
21
3
261
279
1,292
1,168
370
19
0
0
0
172
0
0
TOTAL
$92,609 $20,136 $3,775 $2,553 $4,697 $16,772 $ 8,936 $35,740
B-5
-------
TABLE B-2
YEAR 2000 NEEDS REPORTED IN THE 1982 NEEDS SURVEY
(January 1982 dollars in millions)
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indian?
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Mariana Islands
Puerto Rico
Trust Territories
Virgin Islands
Total
Needs
$1,176
415
624
557
5,596
551
2,180
436
83
4,590
1,954
590
468
4,469
3,951
1,444
1,158
3,072
1,409
1,416
1,228
5,155
5,236
1,481
804
3,081
286
367
220
1,411
6,216
252
17,294
1,779
60
7,313
516
1,560
6,391
674
1,027
204
2,148
3,993
565
500
1,908
3,781
2,617
2,432
145
56
39
63
1,286
107
43
Category of
I
$ 361
180
280
270
2,435
312
364
42
0
1,681
535
182
162
598
314
491
254
397
538
198
195
1,376
1,322
578
358
1,082
44
197
101
318
2,188
149
3,763
448
31
1,046
240
189
1,320
194
198
106
444
1,752
346
96
658
876
432
896
92
23
23
16
370
60
15
II
$ 107
0
4
36
144
15
60
21
9
270
196
0
10
966
150
94
1
113
20
3
264
123
303
126
68
4
3
0
37
7
354
2
244
165
0
642
17
39
306
13
41
17
179
165
75
24
103
24
25
144
7
0
0
1
5
1
0
IIIA
$ 88
2
1
19
62
6
24
1
6
77
94
0
7
178
48
86
51
104
77
18
14
21
73
28
55
38
1
1
3
10
227
0
186
87
1
136
14
71
16
3
76
3
154
182
11
8
18
116
4
32
1
0
1
0
19
0
1
IIIB
$ 5
1
1
2
156
1
17
2
0
0
15
17
2
55
3
1
22
5
16
6
131
18
99
17
1
49
1
1
4
5
2
1
3,760
1
1
21
10
18
1
30
0
1
4
30
0
3
2
63
3
81
0
0
1
0
12
0
0
Need
IVA
$ 355
99
188
126
1,487
29
686
41
0
1,219
325
284
108
210
294
123
128
478
391
227
266
886
590
158
135
252
36
29
46
312
578
47
2,670
510
3
807
117
363
1,611
167
358
3
500
588
68
77
502
686
747
288
3
7
7
22
391
25
14
IVB
$ 260
115
150
104
746
146
254
37
0
1,334
374
107
63
366
175
222
309
524
367
134
283
741
692
253
187
609
37
66
29
315
852
53
1,051
565
11
782
118
206
491
89
354
30
520
1,255
62
31
346
724
238
621
23
26
7
24
317
21
13
V
$ 0
18
o
o
566
42
775
292
68
9
415
0
116
2,096
2,967
427
393
1,451
0
830
75
1,990
2,157
321
0
1,047
164
73
0
444
2,015
0
5,620
3
13
3,879
0
674
2,646
178
0
44
347
21
3
261
279
1,292
1,168
370
19
0
0
0
172
0
0
TOTAL
$118,377 $31,136 $5,747 $2,560 $4,698 $20,667 $17,829 $35,740
B-6
-------
1984 Needs Survey
Report to Congress
Appendix C
Technical Information Summaries
-------
Appendix C
Table of Contents
PAGE
INTRODUCTION C-5
NUMBER OF OPERATIONAL TREATMENT PLANTS AND COLLECTION SYSTEMS IN
1984 AND WHEN ALL IDENTIFIED YEAR 2000 NEEDS ARE MET C-6
Table C-l - 1984 C-7
Table C-2 - When All Identified Year 2000 Needs are Met .... C-S
NUMBER OF TREATMENT PLANTS BY FLOW RANGE C-10
Table C-3 C-ll
TREATMENT PLANT INFORMATION BY LEVEL OF TREATMENT C-12
Table C-4 C-13
TREATMENT PLANT OPERATIONAL DATA: IN 1984 AND WHEN ALL
IDENTIFIED YEAR 2000 NEEDS ARE MET C-14
Table C-5 C-15
NUMBER OF TREATMENT PLANTS NOT MEETING SECONDARY REQUIREMENTS C-16
Table C-6 C-17
NUMBER OF TREATMENT PLANTS MEETING OR EXCEEDING SECONDARY
REQUIREMENTS C-18
Table C-7 C-19
NUMBER OF NONDISCHARGING TREATMENT PLANTS c-20
Table C-8 C-21
PROJECTED CHANGES FOR TREATMENT PLANTS C-22
Table C-9 C-23
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT PLANT UNIT PROCESSES C-24
Table C-10 C-25
SUMMARY OF ADDITIONS TO COLLECTION SYSTEMS C-28
Table C-ll C-29
C-3
-------
Appendix C
Table of Contents (cont'd)
PAGE
SUMMARY OF COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS c_30
Table C-12 c_31
EXISTING COMBINED SEWER SYSTEMS c_32
Table C-13 c_33
NEEDS AND GRANTS DATA BY SUBBASIN c_34
TableC~14 C-35
C-4
-------
Introduction
This appendix contains summaries of the technical information
collected during the 1984 Needs Survey. These summaries give details on
the number of wastewater facilities, the population served by these
facilities, and the levels of treatment they are designed to achieve. The
tables include information on the current 1984 status of wastewater
treatment plants and collection systems, as well as the projected status
when all identified year 2000 needs are met.
Two terms are referred to when discussing the operational status of
wastewater facilities. They are as follows:
o In Operation in 1984; Treatment facilities that are operational in
19847 New facilities under construction in 1984 and treatment
facilities planned to be constructed by the year 2000 are not
included.
o In Operation When All Identified Year 2000 Needs are Met:
Treatment facilities projected to be operational when all
identified year 2000 needs are met. This includes facilities
presently on-line that will remain operational through the year
2000, new facilities under construction in 1984, and new facilities
planned to be built by the year 2000. Facilities that are
presently on-line but are to be taken out of service by the year
2000 are excluded.
C-5
-------
Number of Operational Treatment Plants and Collection Systems
in 1984 and When AH Identified Year 2000 Needs are Met
TOO/, Ta51fu C~1 fnd C~2 summarize the number of facilities in operation in
20nn ±ri?e nm^ P™:ected to be in operation when all identified year
2000 needs are met. These summaries give the number of treatment
facilities and collection systems in each State and U.S. Territory.
C-6
-------
TABLE C-l
NUMBER OF OPERATIONAL TREATMENT PLANTS AND COLLECTION SYSTEMS
Treatment Plants Collection Systems
231 27i
Alabama "^ 51
Alaska ™ 134
Arizona ^» 313
Arkansas ^ ?63
California "J 333
Colorado , 102 137
Connecticut lu^ 35
Delaware 21 -^
Dist. of Columbia 1 33Q
Florida 263
Tfll
381
485
Georgia
Hawaii ' TI-A
Idaho "9 J«
Illinois 720 959
Kansas
685
566
Kentucky 225
Louisiana 312 -'^
. _ . QP LD7
713
576
271
335
Maine 98
145 195
Massachusetts H2 6Q4
Michigan 372 ^^
Minnesota -"10
in ~7 J j z
Mississippi J1J' 583
Missouri "8 ^
Montana
Nebraska *^
Nevada 52 95
New Hampshire 72
9,d 498
New Jersey "* ,,,
.. . * i no 11^
New Mexico
102
848
New York 467
North Carolina 496 ='*
North Dakota 283 '"
Ohio 689 855
Oklahoma 497 511
Oregon 206 245
Pennsylvania 664 ' ^
Rhode Island 20
9 ft fi
South Carolina 226 ^°^
South Dakota 268
014 Zjo
Tennessee •ij* ^ ^g
Texas ' ic n
Utah 95 15^
Vermont 90
, . "~) i o J -Lo
Virginia ^Ja 306
Washington 244
West Virginia 157 ^^^
Wisconsin 570
Wyoming 1°8 2
American Samoa 2 ^
Guam 7 2
Mariana Islands 2 33
Puerto Rico 33
Trust Territories 6
Virgin Islands 4
TOTAL 15,378 '
C-7
-------
TABLE C-2
NUMBER OF OPERATIONAL TREATMENT PLANTS AND COLLECTION SYSTEMS
WHEN ALL IDENTIFIED YEAR 2000 NEEDS ARE MET
Treatment Plants Collection Systems
Alabama 335 ...
Alaska 57 g*
Arizona 175 "
Arkansas 482 534
California 902 , ?CT
Colorado 294 is^
Connecticut 107 f^o
Delaware 22 45
Dist. of Columbia 1
Florida 336 493
Georgia 432 sq
Hawaii 43 j!'
Idaho 198 222
Illinois 849 i ,4?
Indiana 501 ino
Iowa 802 844
Kansas 581 cr\c
Kentucky 388 °°°
Louisiana 447 ^'
"aine 207 244
Maryland 250 34S
Massachusetts 150 267
Michigan 477 _!?'
Minnesota 575 7
Mississippi 430 574
Missouri 638 736
Montana isi 10^
Nebraska 455
Nevada 73
New Hampshire 141
530
80
New Jersey 145
New Mexico 142 ?„
New Y°rk 877 i 494
North Carolina 634 ano
North Dakota 299 \n\
Ohio 775 303
Oklahoma 587 £*
Oregon 226
277
Pennsylvania 1,159
Rhode Island 25 39
South Carolina 294 A-\->
South Dakota 284 286
Tennessee 299 373
Texas 2,094 2 409
Utah 183 2'40l
Vermont 99 f, *
Virginia 310 494
Washington 335 439
West Virginia 502 615
Wisconsin 620 822
Wyoming 113
American Samoa 2 2
Guam 6
Mariana Islands 3 ,
Puerto Rico 32 34
Trust Territories 21 21
Virgin Islands 4 4
TOTAL 20,671
26,853
C-8
-------
(This page intentionally left blank)
C-9
-------
Number of Treatment Plants by Flow Range
Table C-3 is a summary by flow range of all treatment plants in
operation in 1984, as well as those projected to be in operation when all
identified year 2000 needs are met.
f o taSle gives f°Ur flow ran9es in millions of gallons per day (mgd)
for 1984 and 2000, the number of plants in each range, and ^cumulative
total of their design flow capacities. These data are for all types of
treatment plants, regardless of their level of treatment. Other tables in
this appendix provide summaries by level of treatment for both existing
and projected plants.
C-10
-------
TABLE C-3
NUMBER OF TREATMENT PLANTS BY FLCW RANGE
Treatment Plants in Operation in 1984
Flow Ranges Flow Capacity
(mgd) Number of Plants (mgd)
0.01 to 0.10 5,032 251
0.11 to 1.00 6,962 2,649
1.01 to 10.00 2,833 9,250
10.01 and up 551 23,775
TOTAL 15,378 35,925
Treatment Plants Projected to be in Operation When All Identified Year
2000 Needs are Met
Flow Ranges Flow Capacity
(mgd) Number of Plants (mgd)
0.01 to 0.10 8,416 401
0.11 to 1.00 8,313 2,998
1.01 to 10.00 3,255 10,596
10.01 and up 687 29,228
TOTAL 20,671 43,223
Oil
-------
Treatment Plant Information by Level of Treatment
Table C-4 summarizes the degree of treatment received by all
wastewater collected in the United States in 1984 and the degree of
treatment projected to be received when all identified year 2000 needs are
met. This summary provides details on the number of plants and their
associated flow by level of treatment. Explanations of the category terms
are as follows:
o Average Daily Flow; Compiled from actual average daily flow data
for a treatment plant during the most recent 12-month period for
which information was available. This value is applicable only for
treatment plants in operation in 1984.
o Design Capacity; The average daily flow that a treatment plant is
designed to accommodate.
All flows values are given in millions of gallons per day (mgd).
Definitions of the levels of treatment (no discharge, primary,
secondary, etc.) are given in subsequent tables that summarize each
individual level of treatment.
C-12
-------
TABLE C-4
TREATMENT PLANT INFORMATION
BY LEVEL OF TREATMENT
Treatment Plants in Operation in 1984
Design Average Daily
Number of Capacity Flow in 1984
Level of Treatment Facilities (mgd) (mgd)
Raw Discharge 202 NA NA
Less Than Secondary 2,617 6,510 5,335
Secondary 8,070 14,603 11,047
Greater Than Secondary 2,965 13,874 10,113
No Discharge 1,726 938 600
TOTAL 15,580 35,925 27,095
Treatment Plants Projected to be in Operation When All Identified Year 2000 Needs
are Met
Level of Treatment
Raw Discharge
Less Than Secondary
Secondary
Greater Than Secondary
No Discharge
Number of
Facilities
0
14
11,510
6,378
2,769
Design
Capacity
(mgd)
NA
1,464
17,682
22,217
1,860
TOTAL 20,671 43,223
C-13
-------
Treatment Plant Operational Data: In 1984 and When All Identified
Year 2000 Needs are Met
Ta?le^T5.suimiarizes information pertaining to pollutant loadinas
removal efficiencies, and discharge rates for all treatment plants in'
/'aS We aS-°r When a11 identified year 2000 es are
met. Bus table ives
' - es are
s table gives an estimate of the overall average daily pollutant
nT*3 bLaU treatirent Plants, and an estimated SfgSnt
pollutant in the effluent of facilities discharging to rivers and
«*
an froLST^ r!presfnts ^ national average of operational data for
all treatment plants without regard to the level of treatment provided
National summaries for the performance of plants by specific levels of '
treatment are provided in subsequent tables.
1 1 values are 9iven in millions of gallons per day (irad) and
all pollutant removal values are given in tons per day (tpd) t
C-14
-------
TABLE C-5
TREATMENT PLANT OPERATIONAL DATA: IN 1984 AND VHEN ALL
IDENTIFIED YEAR 2000 NEEDS ARE MET
1984
Number of Treatment Plants
Number of People Served
Percent of the Nation
15,378
169,370,000
74%
When All Identified
Year 2000 Needs Are Met
20,671
246,451,000
93%
Removal Efficiencies
Flow
Influent BOD5
Effluent BOD5
Percent Removal
Influent Solids
Effluent Solids
Percent Removal
27,095 mgd
23,339 tpd
3,773 tpd
84%
26,393 tpd
3,705 tpd
86%
43,223 mgd
40,696 tpd
4,19U tpd
90%
42,977 tpd
4,628 tpd
89%
C-15
-------
Number of Treatment Plants Not Meeting Secondary Requirements
Table C-6 summarizes information for wastewater treatment plants that
are not meeting the secondary requirements defined in the Clean Water
Act. These plants are designed to achieve less than secondary treatment.
Treatment plants included in this summary provide either no treatment
(raw discharge), primary treatment, or advanced primary treatment.
Primary and advanced primary treatment generally include unit processes
such as communition, screening, grit removal, and primary sedimentation
units. Advanced primary treatment facilities may provide some biological
treatment, but are unable to treat wastewater to the degree necessary to
comply with EPA's definition of secondary treatment. Both primary and
advanced primary plants are included under the "less than secondary"
portion of the table.
Some facilities collect wastewater and discharge it to the environment
as raw waste. The wastewater is not subjected to any treatment beyond
what is considered preliminary treatment. Preliminary treatment would
include communition, screening, grit removal, etc., but not primary
sedimentation. In 1984, there were 202 communities discharging raw
waste. When the identified year 2000 needs are met, these communities
will have built treatment facilities or interceptors to neighboring
facilities to eliminate the raw discharge.
The removal efficiencies, including existing and projected year 2000
conditions, are calculated from the average daily flow, average daily
influent concentrations, and average daily effluent concentrations. The
current averages are based on the actual performance of each individual
treatment plant for the most recent 12-month period for which information
could be obtained. The main sources of information for current flow and
concentration values were the self-monitoring reports submitted by every
facility with an NPDES permit. The future projected averages are based on
the conditions that would result when each individual treatment plant is
upgraded to meet NPDES-mandated levels of treatment. We assume these
plants will meet their NPDES permit requirements when all identified year
2000 needs are met.
All flow values are given in millions of gallons per day (mgd), ana
all pollutant removal values are given in tons per day (tpd).
C-16
-------
TABLE C-6
NUMBER OF TREATMENT PLANTS NOT MEETING SECONDARY REQUIREMENTS
Raw Discharge
Number of Communities
Number of People Served
Percent of the Nation
1984
202
1,273,000
0.6%
When All Identified
Year 2000 Needs Are Met
0
0
0%
Removal Efficiencies
Not applicable. There is no treatment, therefore, no removal
efficiency can be calculated.
Less Than Secondary Treatment
Number of Treatment Plants
Number of People Served
Percent of the Nation
1984
2,617
33,675,000
15%
When All Identified
Year 2000 Needs Are Met
14*
12,052,000
5%
Removal Efficiencies
Flow
Influent BOD5
Effluent BOD5
Percent Removal
Influent Solids
Effluent Solids
Percent Removal
5,335 mgd
4,917 tpd
2,030 tpd
59%
5,431 tpd
1,602 tpd
71%
1,464 mgd
2,063 tpd
658 tpd
68%
2,258 tpd
621 tpd
73%
* These treatment plants have applied for a waiver from the
secondary treatment requirements in accordance with section 301(h)
of the Clean Water Act. All have received at least tentative
approval.
C-17
-------
Number of Treatment Plants Meeting or Exceeding Secondary Requirements
Table C-7 summarizes the information for wastewater treatment plants
that are designed to meet or exceed the secondary treatment requirements
of the Clean Water Act. Secondary treatment plants generally include some
type of preliminary treatment process followed by a biological process
(trickling filter, activated sludge, rotating biological contactor, etc.)
with no additional treatment processes, except disinfection.
Advanced treatment plants include both advanced secondary and tertiary
treatment. The treatment levels attained by advanced secondary plants or
tertiary plants are defined in terms of the effluent BOD5 concentration
or the removal of phosphorus (104), ammonia (NH3), or nitrogen (N).
A plant is considered to be advanced secondary in design if it is
capable of consistently producing an effluent with a BQD5 concentration
in the range of 24 mg/1 to 10 mg/1, or it has specific processes that
remove phosphorus or ammonia in excess of the amounts normally removed by
secondary treatment.
A plant is considered to be tertiary in design if it is capable of
consistently producing an effluent with a BOD5 concentration less than
10 mg/1, or it has specific processes that can remove more than 50 percent
of the total nitrogen present in the plant influent.
The removal efficiencies of BODs and suspended solids were derived
from the average daily flow, and the average daily influent and effluent
pollutant concentrations. The current averages are based on the actual
performance of individual treatment plants during the most recent 12-month
period for which information could be obtained. The main source of
information for current conditions was the self-monitoring reports
submitted by every plant with an NPDES permit. The future projections for
meeting year 2000 needs are based on the conditions that would exist after
a plant is in compliance with its NPDES permit requirements.
-All flow values are given in millions of gallons per day (mgd), and
all pollutant removal values are given in tons per day (tpd).
C-18
-------
TABLE C-7
NUMBER OF TREATMENT PLANTS MEETING OR EXCEEDING SECONDARY REQUIREMENTS
Secondary Treatment
1984
When All Identified
Year 2000 Needs Are Met
Number of Treatment Plants
Number of People Served
Percent of the Nation
8,070
70,656,000
31%
11,510
101,513,000
38%
Removal Efficiencies
Flow
Influent BOD5
Effluent BOD5
Percent Removal
Influent Solids
Effluent Solids
Percent Removal
11,047 mgd
9,448 tpd
1,135 tpd
88%
10,012 tpd
1,390 tpd
86%
17,682 mgd
17,053 tpd
2,110 tpd
88%
17,337 tpd
2,253 tpd
87%
Better Than Secondary Treatment
1984
When All Identified
Year 2000 Needs Are Met
Number of Treatment Plants
Number of People Served
Percent of the Nation
2,965
59,525,000
26%
6,378
117,910,000
44%
Removal Efficiencies
Flow
Influent BOD5
Effluent BOD5
Percent Removal
Influent Solids
Effluent Solids
Percent Removal
10,113 mgd
8,371 tpd
608 tpd
93%
10,396 tpd
713 tpd
93%
22,217 mgd
19,787 tpd
1,422 tpd
93%
21,624 tpd
1,754 tpd
92%
C-19
-------
Number of Nondischarging Treatment Plants
Table C-8 summarizes information for wastewater treatment plants that
are designed to be nondischarging; i.e., treated wastewater is not
discharged to any stream or river. The majority of the nondischarging
plants are lagoon systems designed to dispose of the total flow they
receive by means of evaporation or percolation to groundwater. Also
included are plants that dispose of their effluent by recycling, reuse,
spray irrigation or other land disposal, or groundwater recharge.
All flow values are given in millions of gallons per day (mgd), and
all pollutant removal values are given in tons per day (tpd).
C-20
-------
TABLE C-8
NUMBER OF NONDISCHARGING TREATMENT PLANTS
Nondischarqinq Treatment Plants
Number of Treatment Plants
Number of People Served
Percent of the Nation
1984
1,726
5,514,000
2%
When All Identified
Year 2000 Needs Are Met
2,769
14,976,000
6%
Removal Efficiencies
Flow
Influent
Effluent
Percent Removal
Influent Solid
Effluent Solid
Percent Removal
600 mgd
603 tpd
0 tpd
100%
554 tpd
0 tpd
100%
1,860 mgd
1,793 tpa
0 tpd
100%
1,758 tpd
0 tpd
100%
C-21
-------
Projected Changes for Treatment Plants
treatmtit n^nf^^i268 ^ dollar neeas identified for changes to
u-eaunenc plants that were opera4"*'w"'1 -•—•>«'>« - - ^-"""•3^0 uu
new plants projected to be built
met.
al
C-22
-------
TABLE C-9
PROJECTED CHANGES FOR TREATMENT PLANTS
Change
for Treatment Plants Operational in 1984
Identified Needs
Type of Change Number of Plants (millions) -
$ 6,156
.
Enlargement
'
l.927
Replace ^
Abandon ^ 3 958
Other '
No Change ....
TOTAL
15,378 $27,142
Plants rr~1~^ ^ ^ Built ^en All Identified Year 2000
Needs are Met
Identified Needs
,1 of Treatment Number of Plants uo
C-23
-------
Summary of Treatment Plant Unit Processes
the ^%™SUTriZef the.inventorY of ^it processes compiled during
the 1984 Survey. Two categories of information were developed for each
unit process: "Now in Use" and "To be Built." In each catgory? tnt
2£ i^^n of,Proresses is l^ted with an associated total flow. For
nl SW^ ^., <"*****' t0tal flow was comPiled ^om the present design
flow of the facilities. For the "To be Built" category, total flow was
compiled from the projected design flow of the plants. All flow values
- ' fl°W value ^ven as 0+
that the flow is greater than 0 but less than 1 mgd.
As defined here, a unit process includes the complete process. For
example, activated sludge includes the aeration basin, associated blowers
and other integral mechanical equipment, and the secondary clarifier
These items are not listed separately. Banner.
Multiple or parallel processes are counted only once for any plant
For example, if a plant has four aerobic digesters, the number of aerobic
»i9 K »S counted ln t"18 summary is one, not four. Therefore, the
Number column denotes the number of plants using that process.
C-24
-------
TABLE C-10
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT PLANT UNIT PROCESSES
Now In Use
To be Built
Process
Primary Treatment
Influent Pumping
Bar Screen
Grit Removal
Comminution
Scum Removal
Flow Equalization
Preaeration
Primary Sedimentation
Imhoff Tank
Biological Treatment
Stabilization Ponds
Aerated Lagoons
Containment Ponds
Aquaculture
Trickling Filters
Activated Bio-Filter
RBC's
Activated Sludge
Oxidation Ditch
Biological Removal-
Nitrification
Denitr ification
Phosphorus Removal
Land Treatment
Overland Flow Systems
Rapid Infiltration
Slow Rate
Physical/Chemical Treatment
Microstrainers
Filters
Activated Carbon
Lime Treatment
Recalcination
Recarbonation
Neutralization
Number
6,998
9,204
4,638
4,333
395
585
433
5,069
431
5,298
1,368
834
2
2,463
8
347
5,690
741
860
40
18
12
60
854
135
1,831
36
130
24
52
23
Flow
(rogd)
26,529
31,290
26,167
12,090
6,750
2,973
6,629
28,409
117
3,138
1,516
252
2
6,345
21
940
27,302
500
6,303
226
222
6
72
1,167
1,041
5,785
458
888
437
272
124
Number
Flow
(mgd)
3,208
5,378
1,508
1,282
42
403
51
1,382
6
21
19
488
259
279
986
214
319
2,209
181
903
0+
2,783
1,494
433
3
107
5
276
2,585
474
1,533
42
9
118
148
30
2
408
8
433
2,713
131
2,553
373
55
6
12
243
48
2,759
12
80
6
27
9
97
2,864
242
263
23
158
13
C-25
-------
TABLE C-10 (Cont'd)
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT PLANT UNIT PROCESSES
Process
Alum Addition
Ferric-Chloride
Polymer Addition
Ion Exchange
Breakpoint Chlorination
Ammonia Stripping
Dechlorination
Post-Aeration
Outfall Pumping
Outfall Diffuser
Disinfection
Chlorination
Ozonation
Ultraviolet
Noncentralized Treatment
Septic Tank
Standard Leach Field
Mound System
Evapotranspiration Bed
Aerobic Unit
Sand Filter
Multiple Leach Fields
Septic Tank Effluent Pumping
Sewers-
Small Diameter
Pressure
Vacuum
Sludge Treatment
Digestion-
Aerobic
Anaerobic
Composting
Heat Treatment
Chlorine Oxidation
Lime Stabilization
Wet Air Oxidation
Now
Number
594
269
80
3
17
7
237
979
246
87
8,564
33
25
188
6
3
1
0
5
7
6
9
5
0
3,547
3,873
47
149
37
80
51
In Use
Flow
(mgd)
3,459
3,192
2,023
2
274
89
1,066
3,832
3,550
1,392
25,797
462
67
9
0+
0+
0+
0
0+
0+
0+
0+
0+
0+
5,500
22,087
1,362
3,035
403
936
788
To be
Number
442
69
75
4
18
4
156
793
245
36
6,040
14
13
140
15
19
2
0
28
29
15
36
10
6
1,678
890
34
17
6
28
1
Built
Flow
(mgd)
907
146
192
4
351
12
472
813
396
938
2,164
51
1
1
0+
0+
0+
0
0+
0+
0+
0+
0+
0+
682
766
394
536
10
157
0+
C-26
-------
TABLE C-10 (Cont'd)
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT PLANT UNIT PROCESSES
Now In Use
To be Built
Process
Air Drying
Sludge Lagoons
Dewatering
Gravity Thickening
Elutriation
Air Flotation Thickening
Chemical Addition
Incineration
Pyrolysis
Digestor Gas Utilization
Heat Recovery
Sludge Disposal
Landfill/Trenching
Land Spreading
Ocean Disposal
Sludge Distribution
Facility Control
Administration Building
Automated Controls
Semi-Automated
Manually Controlled
Facility Construction
Package
Semi-Package
Custom Built
Number
6,473
612
1,658
892
2
269
85
318
3
209
2
7,157
2,600
40
8
8,588
131
10,535
4,573
1,556
6,460
11,901
Flow
(mgd)
11,634
3,252
19,951
11,609
1
4,555
916
7,635
49
3,760
3
23,886
8,559
2,686
42
29,416
3,459
30,175
3,887
756
11,613
35,293
Number
2,372
108
499
260
2
92
78
46
4
35
0
2,577
542
5
8
4,996
20
3,985
2,516
968
2,371
4,624
Flow
(mgd)
1,610
330
4,246
894
0+
1,298
406
2,174
19
798
0
1,124
548
73
48
416
126
508
378
18
364
255
C-27
-------
Summary of Additions to Collection Systems
Table C-ll summarizes the population receiving collection in 1984
^n^if10" that Wil1 ** receivin9 collection when all identified
year 2000 needs are met. Also summarized are the total length of new
sewer pipes projected to be built, and the number of new pumping
stations. The total length of new sewers is divided into size ranges
For new pumping stations, a "pumping capacity" is given, which represents
the cumulative average daily pumping capacity of these stations.
C-28
-------
TABLE C-ll
SUMMARY OF ADDITIONS TO COLLECTION SYSTEMS
Population Receiving Collection
Percent of the Nation
1984
170,643,000
75%
When All Identified
Year 2000 Needs Are Met
246,451,000
93%
Required Additions
Sewer Pipes
Diameter
(inches)
0-18
19-27
28-48
49-78
79+
TOTAL
Length
(miles)
87,080
3,941
3,418
961
134
95,534
Cost
(millions)
$31,160
2,719
3,827
1,945
1,327
$40,978
Pumping Stations
Number of Stations
17,325
Pumping Capacity
(mgd)
10,500
Cost
(millions)
$2,455
C-29
-------
Summary of Collection System Improvements
Table C-12 sunmarizes the information available on collection
systems that require improvements. Two general types of improvements
are summarized: correction of excessive infiltration/inflow (I/I), and
correction of structural deficiencies by major rehabilitation. All
collection systems referred to in this table were operational in 1984.
C-30
-------
TABI£ C-12
SUMMARY OF CDLLBCTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
Information on Collection Systems with Excessive Infiltration/Inflow (I/I)
Recommended corrections for systews with excessive infiltration/inflow (I/I)
Number of Dollars
Systems (millions)
Seal sewer lines 1,430
Replace or reline sewer sections 1,015
Change or create flow routing system 8
Provide flow equalization 23
Not known 240
Other 84
Total 2,800 $2,821
Estimated excessive I/I flow 2,062 mgd
Information on Collection Systems Requiring Major Rehabilitation
Number of Dollars
Systems (millions)
Collection systems requiring major rehabilitation 451 $3,172
C-31
-------
Existing Combined Sewer Systems
Table C-13 presents a summary of selected data reported for all
combined sewer systems. For systems with no planning for control or
correction of combined sewer overflows, this information represents most
or the key data used to estimate the Category V need.
Listed in the table are the total number of combined systems, the area
served by the combined system, and population served by the State. The
number of sewer systems in each State corresponds to the number of
authorities/facilities identified as having a combined-type collection or
treatment system. A system usually includes a number of combined sewer
overflow points from which combined wastewater/stormwater is discharged
directly into the receiving water. The combined sewer area is the area
in acres, drained directly by the combined sewer system. The population
served is the total number of people resident to the area drained directly
by the combined sewer system. States without combined sewers are not
shown.
C-32
-------
TABLE C-13
EXISTING COMBINED SEWER SYSTEMS
CSO
Number of Contained Sewer Population
Systems Area (acres) Served
Alaska 2 320 4,860
California 4 255,920 852,120
Colorado 4 17,650 152,340
Connecticut 16 17,700 384,870
Delaware 5 8,450 90,070
Dist. of Columbia 1 14,710 489,090
Florida 1 630 4,370
Georgia 8 26,760 330,240
Idaho 13 9,310 46,010
Illinois 107 384,510 5,716,270
Indiana 129 331,820
Iowa 20 23,220 343,560
Kansas 3 28,500 464000
Kentucky 17 50,230 768,560
Maine 58 124,490 379,660
Maryland 10 5,870 53,890
Massachusetts 35 69,420 1,886,160
Michigan 91 243,790 2f|?2f?J°
Minnesota 19 28,360 530,650
Missouri 14 88,610 871,500
Montana 13 6,730 100,880
Nebraska 3 16,910 199,410
New Hampshire 22 14,120 227,860
New Jersey 31 119,320 2,008,720
New York 85 445,390 12,233,340
North Carolina 1 10,570 38,350
North Dakota 8 2,370 40,170
Ohio 116 318,660 2,701,000
Oregon 15 38,690 334,430
Pennsylvania 125 226,630 4,154,190
Rhode Island 3 9,540 220,550
South Dakota 13 6,120 93,990
Tennessee 5 20,290 150,500
Texas 1 4,670 35,000
Vermont 33 16,830 128,310
Virginia 11 25,320 536,900
Washington 41 72,290 510,440
West Virginia 47 62,070 476,530
Wisconsin 11 28,690 623,230
Puerto Rico 1 1,070 600,000
TOTAL 1,142 3,176,550 43,700,530
C-33
-------
Needs and Grants Data by Subbasin
Table C-14 lists 1984 Needs Survey data and Federal wastewater
treatment grant awards by subbasin and hydrologic region. Much of the
water quality analysis in the 1984 Needs Survey was performed on a
subbasin basis and then aggregated into hydrologic regions for reporting
purposes. Only in this table are specific subbasin data presented.
Included are the total 1984 current and year 2000 needs in millions of
1984 dollars, total grants obligated through 1984 in millions of
unadjusted dollars, and the total population in thousands served by
wastewater treatment facilities now and when total year 2000 needs are
met.
For the Needs Survey, the continental United States was divided into
314 subbasins. A subbasin is defined in the Glossary, and Figure 1 in
the 1984 Needs Survey Report depicts the hydrologic regions by name.
Ihis table presents each subbasin within a hydrologic region by number
and by name. The subbasin name represents a major water body or other
dominant feature.
Only the 18 hydrologic regions covering the continental United States
were divided into subbasins; these were subdivided into river, stream,
lake shore, and coastline segments, and subsequently used in the water
quality simulation work. However, other aspects of the water quality
analysis addressed all 21 hydrologic regions; therefore, all are included
in this table. The California Hydrologic Region (number 18) departs
slightly from the State boundary in places. For some of the 18
hydrologic regions, an "Other" category has been included in the list of
subbasins to represent the few facilities not linked to an individual
segment or subbasin.
C-34
-------
TABLE C-14
NEEDS AND GRANTS DATA BY SUBBASIN
(Dollars in millions, population in thousands)
USGS Hydro Region/
Subbasin .
01 New England
001 Housatonic River
002 Upper Connecticut River
003 Lower Connecticut River
004 Rhode Island
005 Merrimack River
006 Soco River
007 Kennebec River
008 Penobscot River
009 Aroostook River
010 Barton River
Region Total
1984
Current
Needs
($1984)
1,197
144
518
3,244
780
401
78
133
31
0
2000
Total
Needs
($1984)
1,375
167
635
3,628
982
493
88
150
37
0
Total
Grants
Obligated
Through
1984
494
86
344
1,012
491
227
66
56
26
14
1984
Popu-
lation
Served
1,862
110
1,257
3,788
740
335
93
111
41
7
Year
2000
Needs
Met
Popu-
lation
Served
2,345
163
1,700
4,941
1,253
593
149
199
62
12
6,526
7,555
2,816
8,344
11,417
02 Mid-Atlantic
Oil Peconic River
012 Lake Champlain
013 James River
014 Rappahannock River
015 Upper Potomac River
016 Lower Potomac River
017 Upper Susquehanna River
018 Middle Susquehanna River
019 Lower Susquehanna River
020 Chesapeake Bay
021 Upper Delaware River
022 Lower Delaware River
023 New Jersey Coast
024 Upper Hudson River
025 Lower Hudson River
Region Total
3,119
229
430
207
331
1,313
601
453
486
161
687
1,030
3,629
506
1,753
3,323
254
532
258
599
1,620
664
547
607
188
837
1,202
3,874
575
1,925
1,560
100
323
106
263
1,229
126
105
423
167
366
1,198
1,786
230
236
4,562
222
1,405
417
565
4,518
430
781
1,067
169
1,142
4,962
5,318
582
3,273
4,799
341
2,148
659
1,171
5,882
664
1,173
1,605
311
1,545
5,281
5,950
779
3,020
14,935
17,005
8,218
29,413
35,328
03 South Atlantic
026 Pearl River
027 Pascagoula River
028 Tallapoosa River
029 Upper Coosa River
030 Lower Coosa River
031 Alabama River
032 Tombigee River
033 Black Warrior River
034 Mobile River
035 Conecuh River
036 Chockawhatchee River
037 Flat River
038 Chattahoochee River
039 Ochlokanee River
040 Suwanee River
041 South Florida River
042 St. Johns River
043 Satilla River
044 Ocmulgee River
045 Altamaha River
046 Ogeechee River
047 Upper Savannah River
048 Lower Savannah River
179
119
43
99
139
124
60
189
86
158
57
92
310
35
68
1,920
705
59
144
62
16
66
89
293
183
71
226
182
194
88
281
140
296
115
139
552
74
101
3,447
1,410
103
274
97
24
120
126
80
75
32
76
19
49
34
129
23
84
32
92
171
33
40
072
251
30
146
18
20
56
70
501
360
110
178
179
366
185
556
317
341
135
813
931
190
267
4,227
1,381
111
641
190
75
117
400
742
575
199
408
317
595
304
705
591
630
225
1,214
1,681
356
383
9,083
2,777
225
1,211
338
133
228
574
C-35
-------
TABLE C-14 (cont'd)
NEEDS AND GRANTS DATA BY SUBBASIN
(Dollars in millions, population in thousands)
USGS Hydro Region/
Subbasin
049 Congaree River
050 Santee River
051 Upper Pee Dee River
052 Lower Pee Dee River
053 Cape Fear River
054 Neuse River
055 Tar River
056 Dan River
057 Roanoke River
058 Chowan River
Region Total
1984
Current
Needs
($1984)
334
345
213
185
210
146
75
24
45
47
2000
Total
Needs
($1984)
815
546
374
296
369
249
124
40
48
61
Total
Grants
Obligated
Through
1984
($Nominal)
134
177
164
98
177
83
60
25
38
30
1984
Popu-
lation
Served
871
981
382
283
570
502
159
145
208
81
6,443
11,458
3,618
16,753
Year
2000
Needs
Met
Popu-
lation
Served
1,720
1,532
813
592
1,162
873
231
245
293
134
31,089
04 Great Lakes
059 MN Lake Superior
060 WI Lake Superior
061 MI Lake Superior
062 Lower Michigan North
063 Menominee River
064 WI Lake Michigan
065 St. Joseph River
066 Grand River
067 Muskegon/Manistee River
068 Au Sable River
069 Saginaw Bay
070 Detroit River
071 Maunee River
072 Lake Erie
073 Genesee River
074 Finger Lakes
075 St. Lawrence River
Region Total
05 Ohio
150 Monongahela River
151 Alleghany River
152 Ohio River
153 Muskingum River
-154 Ohio River
155 New River
156 Kanawha River
157 Guyandotte River
158 Big Sandy River
159 Scioto River
160 Ohio River
161 Licking River
162 Great Miami River
163 Ohio River
164 Kentucky River
165 Green River
166 Ohio River
167 Upper Wabash River
168 White River
169 Lower Wabash River
170 Upper Cumberland River
171 Lower Cumberland River
178 Ohio River
Region Total
1
1
1
4
33
75
29
23
,213
233
289
128
64
173
,466
375
,698
247
398
81
5
39
94
36
27
1,380
301
335
152
72
231
1,851
543
1,880
334
483
87
6,529
482
403
575
453
200
90
398
190
251
319
112
24
264
220
209
97
469
71
290
142
132
213
57
5,661
7,850
548
466
682
555
226
112
452
226
298
379
137
36
407
359
296
148
861
91
375
174
155
343
81
7,407
86
58
49
22
18
484
262
586
69
28
373
746
424
1,636
381
350
45
126
118
110
46
82
2,005
956
1,191
233
70
949
3,848
1,347
3,425
733
633
131
131
131
154
64
109
2,787
1,260
1,719
338
131
1,303
4,136
1,851
4,052
821
829
159
5,617
190
171
397
184
59
70
182
12
36
202
87
21
231
212
111
66
143
104
422
128
20
179
7
3,234
16,003
703
741
2,368
682
241
158
296
26
37
1,169
280
76
1,018
1,273
310
209
950
341
1,401
696
82
583
109
13,749
19,975
1,128
1,087
2,649
1,016
432
314
650
160
205
1,333
395
131
1,406
1,619
602
331
1,711
496
1,901
932
180
1,145
142
19,965
C-36
-------
TABLE C-14 (cont'd)
NEEDS AND GRANTS DATA BY SUBBASIN
(Dollars in millions, population in thousands)
USGS Hydro Region/
Subbasin
06 Tennessee
172 French Broad River
173 Clinch River
174 Little Tennessee River
175 Upper Tennessee River
176 Middle Tennessee River
177 Lower Tennessee River
Region Total
07 Upper Mississippi
082 Upper Minnesota River
083 Lower Minnesota River
084 Mississippi River
085 St. Croix River
086 Chippewa River
087 Mississippi River
088 Wisconsin River
089 Mississippi River WI
090 Rock River
091 Iowa River
092 Mississippi River
093 Upper Des Moines River
094 Lower Des Moines
095 Upper Illinois River
096 Lower Illinois River
097 Mississippi River IL
148 Kaskaskia River
149 MS River below St. Louis
Region Total
1984
Current
Needs
($1984)
2000
Total
Needs
($1984)
Total
Grants
Obligated 1984
Through Popu-
1984 lation
(SNominal) Served
308
92
162
236
147
61
1,006
533
111
343
356
235
99
1,677
88
10
102
105
75
40
420
389
38
337
231
420
155
1,570
Year
2000
Needs
Met
popu-
lation
Served
883
121
586
506
734
244
3,074
30
78
493
35
16
51
87
45
122
181
179
69
278
891
246
69
44
1,103
35
130
729
54
21
75
114
57
211
267
243
78
313
1,171
312
94
64
1,261
51
59
360
15
23
92
22
41
192
104
145
9
92
1,803
110
61
33
305
120
453
1,751
86
150
387
262
240
1,021
594
632
145
425
7,345
992
326
236
1,868
145
654
2,003
139
199
561
387
317
1,463
714
909
194
594
8,750
1,315
529
313
2,293
4,017
5,229
3,517
17,033
21,479
08 Lower Mississippi
080 Calcasieu River 169 228
081 LA Gulf Coast 286 557
179 Mississippi River KY 322 455
180 St. Francis River 55 77
183 MS River below Memphis 30 55
198 Yazoo River 97 134
199 Big Black River 11 34
200 Mississippi River MS 37 58
201 Mississippi River Mouth 151 247
207 Ouachita River 87 129
208 Actchafalaya River 137 190
209 Lake Ponchartrain 136 205
Other 0 21
Region Total 1,518 2,390
09 Souris-Red-Rainy
076 Rainy River 10 14
077 Upper Red River North 29 35
078 Lower Red River 13 17
079 Souris River 7 13
Region Total 59 79
66
92
95
14
13
34
7
5
45
98
33
38
0
472
356
918
225
124
262
59
148
963
567
200
198
26
805
848
1,405
330
228
440
100
234
1,394
850
371
542
36
540
10
76
37
16
139
4,518
24
223
126
71
444
7,583
36
289
169
92
586
037
-------
TABLE C-14 (cont'd)
NEEDS AND GRANTS DATA BY SOBBASIN
(Dollars in millions, population in thousands)
USGS Hydro Region/
Subbasin
10 Missouri
098 Jefferson River
099 Madison River
100 MO River Headwater
101 Marias River
102 Mussel Shell River
103 Missouri River
104 Milk River
105 Poplar River
106 Yellowstone River Headwater
107 Upper Yellowstone River
108 Upper Bighorn River
109 Middle Bighorn River
110 Tongue River
111 Middle Yellowstone River
112 Upper Powder River
113 Lower Powder River
114 Lower Yellowstone River
115 Little Missouri River
116 Missouri River 04
117 Missouir River 05
118 Upper Cheyenne River
119 Belle Pourche River
120 Lower Cheyenne River
121 Oahe Reservoir
122 White River
123 Missouri River SD
124 Niobrare River
125 Upper James River
126 Lower James River
127 Missouri River
128 Big Sioux River
129 Lower Sioux River
130 North Platte River Headwater
131 Upper North Platte River
132 Middle North Platte River
133 Upper South Platte River
134 South Platte River
135 Loup River
136 Elkhorn River
137 Platte River
138 Missouri River
139 Republican River
140 Smokey Hill River
141 Lower Smokey Hill River
142 Big Blue River
143 Kansas River
144 Grand River
145 South Grand River
146 MO River at St. Louis
147 Missouri River
210 Canada Border
Other
Region Total
11 Arkansas-White-Red
181 Black River
182 White River
1984
Current
Needs
($1984)
2000
Total
Needs
($1984)
Total
Grants
Obligated 1984
Through Popu-
1984 lation
($Nominal) Served
1
0
14
1
1
1
1
1
1
12
3
6
0
0
1
0
2
0
2
2
2
12
6
1
3
5
4
7
20
8
30
152
1
4
4
73
5
7
5
12
155
6
1
12
13
93
271
93
49
97
0
0
2
0
15
2
1
1
1
2
1
21
5
8
1
0
1
0
2
1
13
3
3
21
20
1
5
8
7
12
24
14
51
230
3
14
12
285
7
14
9
45
185
11
1
24
19
206
439
149
70
245
0
0
1,200
25
123
2,214
32
235
3
0
24
3
0
5
6
0
0
24
13
4
12
4
4
0
1
1
16
3
1
13
9
0
0
3
7
6
11
14
54
140
9
23
19
102
13
2
9
26
88
6
0
13
24
83
235
109
45
34
0
0
1,221
21
51
11
2
128
20
5
10
26
14
1
101
37
26
17
16
7
1
18
5
123
33
7
45
58
6
27
30
26
60
73
60
165
786
18
77
99
2,074
58
47
102
297
441
71
5
145
121
487
1,012
178
212
377
0
1
7,766
70
216
Year
2000
Needs
Met
Popu-
lation
Served
13
2
183
22
5
10
34
18
1
172
66
38
33
29
15
1
22
11
179
37
10
83
143
7
32
43
34
85
84
76
250
1,042
34
161
136
3,202
82
71
147
406
591
93
6
170
159
814
1,488
305
315
486
0
0
11,446
105
474
038
-------
TABLE C-14 (cont'd)
NEEDS AND GRANTS DATA BY SUBBASIN
(Dollars in millions, population in thousands)
USGS Hydro Region/
Subbasin
184 Purgatorie River
185 Arkansas River CO
186 Arkansas River KS
187 Upper Cimarron River
188 Lower Ciraarron River
189 Salt Fork
190 Verdigris River
191 Neosho River
192 Canadian River Headwater
193 Canadian River Texas
194 Upper North Canadian River
195 Lower Canadian River
196 Arkansas River
197 Arkansas River Mouth
202 Upper Red River
203 Washita River
204 Middle Red River
205 Lower Red River
206 Red River
Other
Region Total
12 Texas Gulf
211 Petronila River
212 Nueoes River
213 Quadalupe River
214 Upper Colorado River
215 Middle Colorado River
216 Lower Colorado River
217 Upper Brazos River
218 Middle Brazos River
219 Lower Brazos River
220 Upper Trinity River
221 Lower Trinity River
222 Neches River
223 Sabine River
Region Total
13 Rio Grande
224 Rio Grande Headwater
225 Upper Rio Grande
226 Upper Pecos River
227 Lower Pecos River
228 Middle Rio Grande
229 Lower Rio Grande
230 San Luis Creek
231 Miscellaneous Region 13
Region Total
14 Upper Colorado
232 Separation Creek
233 Gunnison River
234 Colorado River
235 Colorado River
236 Upper Green River
1984
Current
Needs
($1984)
0
46
144
10
11
10
31
102
2
15
8
128
171
101
32
22
54
102
94
0
1,231
150
38
556
31
233
32
38
65
652
346
97
117
92
2,447
15
79
10
15
56
43
0
3
221
0
7
2
2
3
2000
Total
Needs
($1984)
1
85
274
13
51
13
53
137
2
25
10
241
255
192
46
36
69
141
171
0
2,082
286
64
682
54
449
65
62
102
1,342
755
127
187
144
4,319
22
173
21
20
83
88
0
2
409
0
25
27
5
5
Total
Grants
Obligated
Through
1984
($Nominal)
0
48
74
9
13
9
31
72
4
12
0
121
57
67
6
20
8
65
36
5
729
76
17
69
26
53
14
15
38
470
227
88
34
41
1,168
14
59
22
4
26
15
0
0
140
0
22
62
0
14
1984
Popu-
lation
Served
10
510
625
44
204
90
146
346
20
182
34
1,014
681
438
240
97
287
336
402
0
5,992
658
120
1,330
333
592
120
355
404
3,806
3,138
359
246
307
11,768
61
569
119
56
473
256
3
37
1,574
0
30
113
12
81
Year
2000
Needs
Met
Popu-
lation
Served
13
730
833
67
359
104
221
478
24
211
44
1,253
1,032
960
307
145
366
515
677
0
8,918
1,259
223
1,845
468
1,122
230
475
550
6,267
4,715
522
498
519
18,693
102
985
158
72
630
472
3
48
2,470
0
88
348
18
101
C-39
-------
TABLE C-14 (cont'd)
NEEDS AND GRANTS DATA BY SUBBASIN
(Dollars in millions, population in thousands)
USGS Hydro Region/
Subbasin
237 Yampa River
238 White River
239 Lower Green River
240 Upper San Juan River
241 Lower San Juan River
242 Little Colorado River
Region Total
1984
Current
Needs
($1984)
2
0
10
8
10
5
49
2000
Total
Needs
($1984)
3
1
17
25
15
131
Total
Grants
Obligated 1984
Through Popu-
1984 lation
($Nominal) Served
13
1
17
17
13
0
159
22
4
61
66
41
1
431
Year
2000
Needs
Met
Popu-
lation
Served
58
13
117
169
107
7
1,026
15 Lower Colorado
243 Lower Colorado River
244 Colorado River
245 Upper Gila River
246 Salt River
247 Lower Gila River
248 Colorado River CA
249 San Simon River
250 Whitewater Draw
Region Total
45
18
13
273
142
93
5
593
87
64
16
503
235
134
6
5
1,050
10
18
6
80
69
27
0
3
213
139
549
42
1,412
674
116
4
19
2,955
307
973
69
2,676
1,357
285
9
27
5,703
16 Great Basin
251 Central Nevada
252 Truckee River
253 Quinn River
254 Humboldt River
255 Sevier River
256 Bear River
257 Weber River
258 Great Salt River
Region Total
4
135
1
7
25
50
272
7
501
4
251
2
9
36
78
540
11
931
2
105
0
10
3
18
107
1
9
315
0
26
31
92
1,148
23
12
671
2
43
92
217
1,885
55
246
1,644
2,977
17 Pacific Northwest
259 Big Lost River
260 Silver Creek
261 Silvies River
262 Kootenai River
263 Upper Clark Fork
264 Lower Clark Fork
265 Flathead River
266 Pend Orielle
267 NE Puget Sound
268 Skyoraish River
269 West Puget Sound
270 Washington Coast
271 Spokane River
272 Yakima River
273 Snake River WY
274 Big Wood River
275 Upper Snake River
276 Bruneau River
277 Lower Owyhee River
278 Owyhee River
279 Central Snake River
280 Lower Boise River
2
0
0
5
0
3
19
30
323
1,154
235
66
346
7
27
4
15
0
0
0
4
60
3
0
0
7
3
11
22
44
432
1,546
401
96
428
55
46
18
32
0
0
0
6
108
0
0
0
5
11
9
14
9
123
64
128
81
75
41
19
2
30
1
0
0
1
45
3
0
9
8
56
42
26
15
228
1,083
342
65
241
167
65
11
139
0
0
0
20
140
4
0
12
14
56
64
57
42
561
1,713
607
126
530
252
130
22
247
1
0
0
34
345
C-40
-------
TABLE C-14 (cont'd)
NEEDS AND GRANTS DATA BY SUBBASIN
(Dollars in millions, population in thousands)
USGS Hydro Region/
Subbasin
281 Malheur River
282 Payette River
283 Weiser River
284 Middle Snake River
285 Lower Salmon River
286 Upper Salmon River
287 Lower Snake River
288 Lower Clearwater River
289 Upper Clearwater River
290 Snake River
291 Umatilla River
292 John Day River
293 Lower Columbia River
294 Deschutes River
295 Cowlitz River
296 Columbia River Mouth
297 OR Northern Coast
298 Umpqua River
299 OR Southern Coast
300 Upper Rogue River
301 Lower Rogue River
Region Total
1984
Current
Needs
($1984)
2
9
1
1
0
3
5
4
9
18
4
1
72
7
30
447
20
16
8
29
1
2000
Total
Needs
($1984)
5
14
1
5
0
6
8
7
16
34
7
2
126
18
40
698
32
24
12
36
2
Total
Grants
Obligated
Through
1984
($Nominal)
0
7
0
6
0
1
7
0
7
4
9
4
46
48
18
267
26
18
8
9
3
1984
Popu-
lation
Served
11
25
2
16
0
5
20
9
33
49
24
7
174
17
61
1,332
35
54
39
99
12
Year
2000
Needs
Met
Popu-
lation
Served
13
40
3
22
0
12
35
12
51
76
49
10
345
85
107
2,514
77
102
63
272
22
2,987
4,351
1,146
4,684
8,727
18 California
302 Upper Klamath River
303 Lower Klamath River
304 Eel River
305 San Francisco Bay
306 Shasta Lake
307 Sacramento River
308 San Joaquin River
309 Salinas River
310 South CA Coast
311 Mojave River
312 Owens River
313 Eagle River
314 Kings River
Region Total
25
37
81
735
16
272
337
305
1,293
199
11
0
213
31
45
225
1,094
23
519
488
421
2,452
317
19
2
369
6
60
88
845
7
463
320
201
1,053
48
8
2
106
56
99
229
3,792
23
1,351
1,267
779
13,194
341
26
13
911
88
121
406
4,539
43
2,231
2,128
1,353
16,683
877
54
23
1,560
3,524
6,005
3,207
22,081
30,106
19 Alaska
Region Total
160
343
146
268
631
20 Hawaii*
Region Total
586
972
330
710
1,622
21 Puerto Rico**
Region Total
1,639
2,248
346
1,671
3,636
GRAND TOTAL
61,832
85,705
37,170
169,371 246,451
* Includes American Samoa, Guam, Mariana Islands,
and the Trust Territories
** Includes the Virgin Islands
•U.S. GOTEEKMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1985 0-4-69-412/20927
C-41
-------
DAT
US. Em/ir-on^ ~nt*.l Protect,on Agency,
Region V, L-.braty
230 Sout i Dj&;u:-.rn Street j^
Chicago, iilinois 60604 , •
------- |