COST EFFECTIVENESS
            IN
WATER QUALITY PROGRAMS
       A DISCUSSION

-------
    Cost  Effectiveness
                  in
Water Quality Programs
            A Discussion
 This document discusses critical cost effectiveness
 issues that the Environmental Protection Agency
 believes must be addressed in water quality planning.
 Inquiries and comments on this water quality planning
 discussion should be directed to the Office of Air and
 Water Programs, EPA.
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
           Washington, D.C. 2046O

-------
                        Contents
I.  The Concept                                               1
       Intent                                                 1
       Definition                                             3
       Application                                            5

II.  Projecting Wastewater Flows                              6
       Existing Flows                                        6
       Population                                             7
       Industry                                              10

III. Assembling a Wastewater Systems Configuration          12
       Systems Components  and Sites                        14
       Combined Municipal-Industrial Systems               15
       Individual vs.  Central Treatment Systems             16

IV. Selecting the Treatment Process                         20
       Upgrading the IPresent Facility                       20
       Reliability and Flexibility                             22
       Reuse of Wastewater                                  24
       Water Disposal vs. Land Disposal of Effluent          25
       Ultimate Disposal of Liquid, Sludge, and Other Wastes 27

V.  Scheduling Construction of Facilities                     29
       Short Design Periods                                 30
       Long Design Periods                                  31
       Financing                                            32
       Treatment Plants                                     33
       Interceptor Sewers                                   34

   Appendices  -
       A.  Review Questions for Planning Municipal
            Wastewater Treatment Facilities                 36
       B.  Summary of National Population Trends           43

    Tables -
       I.  Population Change, 1960-1970                     47
       II.  Standard Metropolitan  Statistical Areas           48

-------
Figures -
 1.
 2.
 3.
 4.
 5.
 6.
 7.
 8.
 9.
10.
11.
12.
       Non-SMSA Counties, 1960-
       Non-SMSA Counties, 1960-
       Non-SMSA Counties, 1960-
       Non-SMSA Counties, 1960-
       Non-SMSA Counties, 1960-
      - Non-SMSA Counties, 1960-
       Non-SMSA Counties, 1960-
       Non-SMSA Counties, 1960-
       Non-SMSA Counties, 1960-
       Non-SMSA Counties, 1960-
       Non-SMSA Counties, 1960-
       Comparison of Non-SMSA1
           Change, 1960-70
70 Population
70 Population
70 Population
70 Population
70 Population
70 Population
70 Population
70 Population
70 Population
70 Population
70 Population
s  and SMSA's
Growth (Boston Region)    55
Growth (New York)        56
Growth (Philadelphia)      57
Growth (Atlanta)           58
Growth (Chicago)          59
Growth (Dallas)            60
Growth (Kansas  City)      61
Growth (Denver)           62
Growth (San Francisco)    63
Growth (Seattle)           64
Growth (National Summary) 65
Rate of Population
                          66
                                  11.

-------
                     I.  The Concept







       Cost effectiveness has been a Federal water quality control




program objective for several years.  It was first highlighted,




however,  in the July 1970 Environmental Protection Agency





regulations (18 CFR Part 601) concerning basin and regional/




metropolitan water quality management plans and municipal




wastewater projects.  Subsequent Federal guidelines and reg-





ulations have further emphasized the need for cost effectiveness





in water quality management.




       The cost effectiveness issues discussed herein are




critical in the formulation of acceptable water quality plans





and projects.  Such  issues will become increasingly acute as





even greater amounts of Federal funds are directed towards water





pollution control.







Intent





       This publication is intended to help design engineers,  water




quality management planners, and decision-makers at all levels of




government apply cost effectiveness for the greatest clean-up pos-




sible for public pollution  control dollars.   In conjunction with several

-------
earlier EPA publications (*) it should be used in preparing and review-

ing all water quality plans and designs for municipal wastewater sys-

tems and projects.  It should be of particular value throughout the

planning and project formulation process.

        Ultimately, the effectiveness  of any water pollution control

plan or project is measured by whether it  succeeds in meeting and

maintaining water quality standards or other  appropriate goals.  But

there are often alternative strategies available  for achieving this

fundamental objective.

        The planning role in water quality management is to develop and

evaluate the alternatives and determine the strategy for attaining the

water quality goals at the least cost.   The (EPA) Guidelines for  Water

Quality Management Planning discuss in detail the methods to deter-

mine the cost-effective plan.
(*) Federal Guidelines for Design,  Operation and Maintenance of
Wastewater Treatment Facilities, EPA, September 1970, and  supplemen-
tal technical bulletins.  Guidelines for Water Quality Management
Planning, EPA, January 1971.  Federal Guidelines for Equitable
Recovery of Industrial Waste Treatment Costs in Municipal Systems,
EPA, October 1971.  Draft Guidelines and  Procedures  for Preparation
of Environmental Impact Statements, EPA, Federal Register,
January 20, 1972 (40 CFR Part 6).

-------
       Two types of plans are required by the Guidelines:  basin and





areawide.  The basin  plan centers on water quality management in the





hydrologic system.  It establishes basinwide  priorities and constraints




and allocates  the assimilative capacity for meeting water quality  stan-




dards among the various wastewater sources.    Of special relevance




to this discussion,  the areawide (or metropolitan/regional) plan selects




and schedules the systematic application  of legal and technological tools




to achieve  and maintain water quality standards  within certain political-





ly defined areas.  These may be population and  industrial  concentrations




or other water quality problem areas.  Some critical questions posed in




areawide planning are location and sizing of sewers and treatment





plants,  process selection, consolidation of facilities, and control of




growth and development for  environmental reasons.







Definition
       An effective plan will set forth the actions required to achieve





and maintain water quality standards or other goals, now and in the





future.  It will prevent the degradation of high quality water bodies.





It will contain timetables for action.  And it will contain price tags--





the capital costs of construction, and the on-going costs of operation





and maintenance.





       The objective of cost-effective planning for water pollution con-





trol is to  minimize the total of those costs, whether they are  paid by

-------
the local, state or Federal government.





       On the local level, a cost-effective plan for a defined local




planning area will minimize the total public cost of pollution con-




trol while satisfying the criteria of controlling environmental





damage, meeting social goals, and providing reliable performance.




In other words, as a plan is implemented, the community will




incur capital costs for construction and on-going costs for oper-





ation and maintenance.





       On, the national level, cost effectiveness means that local





projects which provide the  greatest overall improvement in water





quality, in terms of beneficial  social and environmental  impact,  will




be approved before those which provide less improvement.  This is




especially important in determining priorities within a metropolitan




or regional area, a river basin, or a state.





       Cost effective water quality management planning must be in-




tegrated with plans for all public services associated with area develop-





ment. The area's land-use goals  should  provide the basis for all de-




sired development.  Planning for needed  wastewater collection and




treatment facilities must then stem from the land-use goals,  and develop-




ment of these facilities should  parallel development of other services




such as water  supply,  schools  and transportation,  as well as  total





urban development  itself.

-------
Application




       This discussion applies the concept of cost effectiveness to four





major components of the water quality management planning process--




projecting wastewater flows, assembling a wastewater systems con-




figuration, selecting the  treatment process, and scheduling construc-




tion of facilities.




       All questions posed herein may not be relevant to all areas or





all  plans under consideration.  But all pertinent sections should be





used in developing and  reviewing a plan or a grant application for a




project.




       Finally,  it should be noted that this publication is not intended




to provide cost effectiveness criteria for approval or rejection of a





plan.   Rather,  it is intended as an introduction to the concept of




cost effectiveness.  EPA intends to expand upon this document with





complementary documents  or guidelines related specifically to




the  evaluation and  screening of alternative plans and projects.

-------
                II.  Projecting Wastewater Flows







       Many factors are involved in projecting wastewater flows in a





planning area.  Although analysis of the existing wastewater flows is





the beginning  point in the projection and planning task,  determination




of population trends is obviously of equal importance.  Once these two





major factors have been evaluated other possible planning determinants




are considered, such as:





       -  Extensions of  the domestic sewer service area,




       -  Increases in per capita domestic wastewater production,





       -  Increases in discharges  from connected industrial sources,  and




       -  New industrial connections.







Existing Flows




       Review and evaluation of the existing wastewater flows should





be done as part of the analysis of the existing system which is already




required by the Federal Guidelines for Design,  Operation and  Main-




tenance of Wastewater Treatment Facilities (EPA).  Those guidelines




also require remedial measures if flows appear excessive in relation




to population, and commercial and  industrial users served. The re-




quired analysis should provide answers to  several  questions,





including:

-------
       1.  Is there excessive infiltration into the system?




       2. Are there illegal storm water connections, and if so, what





is being done about them?




       3. Are sewer ordinances adequate and are they enforced?




       4. Are reported waste flows reasonable and are they based





on actual in-plant measurements ?




       5. Are reported per capita waste loadings representative?





       6. How were they determined and is the method defensible?





       It should be noted that in some instances the  public is showing an




interest in technological changes to reduce water consumption.  This




could curtail the  per capita wastewater discharge in the near future.




Substantial savings can be made--in capital investment and in operation




and maintenance  costs--by  reducing wastewater volume.  Thus  all





probable institutional and legal  techniques for reducing wastewater





volume should be  considered.  (For example:  Building code changes




to restrict the size of water closet tanks, the flow of showerheads,  etc.)







Population




       The  overall rate of population growth in the United States has




been declining.  But at the same time there have been large shifts  in




population as migration has continued from rural to  urban areas.




And in urban areas, much of the population growth has occurred in

-------
the suburban ring surrounding core cities, while population in the core




cities has remained generally constant.  Some moderate or small rural





communities are developing into regional commercial and service cen-




ters, and are likely to continue to grow.  But population in most rural




communities is stable or declining.





       Against that general background, water quality planners analyze




the characteristics of population trends in their given planning  area.




To assist,  population statistics and projections are available for most





of the heavily populated areas of the nation.  Projections are made by





regional planning agencies,  by state agencies (commerce,  planning, etc.)




and by the Federal government (the Commerce Department's Bureau





of the Census, Office of Business Economics,  and Bureau of Economic





Analysis).




       The  Census Bureau's Standard Metropolitan Statistical  Area




(SMSA) studies of the larger American cities are  a particularly valuable





planning resource.  However, areas outside SMSAs are not studied in




such detail, and a complicating factor in smaller  cities  is their vul-




nerability to annexation by neighboring cities.  Since the smallest stable




geographic boundary is the county,  population by counties has been




tabulated for non-SMSA counties and subdivided according to population





of the largest town in the county.   (Appendix Bin  this publication

-------
contains compilations of 1970 Census data that may be helpful in areas





for which no projections are readily available.  Tabulations are also





presented for each EPA region in Table 1. )





       But whatever sources are used to project population growth,





planners should keep these questions in mind:





       1. Are projected population growth rates realistic?





       2.  What is  their basis?




       3.  Do the figures distinguish between total population and





sewered population?





       4.  How does the projection compare with existing data?





       5.  If discrepancies exist,  what caused them?





       6.  What,  if any, land use constraints were considered  in





the population projections?





       If evaluation produces population projections which are  incon-





sistent with present local trends, they should be investigated further.





If the service area growth rate appears unusual, explanation should be





given.  Incorrect projections in the past have resulted in overcapacity





in some  instances,  overloading in others.  More careful planning





today will avoid this in the  future.





       Population shifts, as well as growth, should also be considered





within the planning area.   These shifts may have a greater impact than





net increases in population.  For example,  even though  the population

-------
growth rate may remain unchanged, will additional sewer lines be re-




quired in different parts of the area because of population shifts?  From




the core city to the suburbs? By extensions of the urban fringe?





By converting older homes from septic tanks to sewer service?




       Moreover, population estimates for water  quality planning




should be  consistent with population growth estimates used by a state





in preparing its implementation plan submitted to  EPA in compliance




with the Clean Air Act of 1970.







Industry





       Industrial connections to  the municipal system should also be




considered in projecting future wastewater flows.  Planners should




bear in mind such questions as:




       1.   Do already connected industrial sources expect their





discharges to increase,  decrease, or remain constant?




       2.   Will the nature of discharges from connected industries change?





       3.   What are the prospects of unconnected  industries hooking up




with the municipal system in the future?




       4.   What are the prospects of new industries locating in the area,




and what will this mean for industrial service as well as increased





domestic service?
                                 10

-------
       New or expanded industry can obviously affect population growth





and, if added to the municipal system, can obviously produce changes





often not considered in projections.  Also, because industrial effluent




is usually more concentrated than municipal sewage,  industrial waste-





water  can have a proportionately greater impact on a  municipal




system than its volume along would indicate.




       Another factor; Increasing water supply and waste treatment





costs appear to be  causing more intensive use and  reuse of water by





the industrial sector,  where production is rising faster  than the volume




of wastewater discharges.  (See Volume I of EPA's 1972 Economics of





Clean Water for a detailed discussion of this trend.)  So, this too




should be considered,  along with the impact of increasing public




interest in conservation practices for reducing domestic water  use.





       In sum, while population is the predominant indicator,  waste-




water flow projections must consider all applicable factors.
                                 11

-------
         III.  Assembling a Wastewater Systems Configuration







       In formulating a cost-effective plan to address the pollution




sources within a basin or metro/regional area the water quality plan-





ner considers all feasible alternatives.  Except in the simplest cases




where there is only one practicable means of achieving water quality




goals, the  planner  should identify feasible alternative courses to





achieve the water quality goals,  Itemize and  compare the costs of





major alternatives, and state the basis for selecting the chosen





alternative.




       During the  system selection process, the planner  examines




these questions:




       1.  Has upgrading of existing facilities been considered?





What are the advantages and disadvantages?





       2.  Has regionalization of facilities been  considered?





       3.  Has a combined municipal-industrial  waste treatment




system been considered?




       4.  Has recycling been considered?




       5.  Has a soil disposal system been considered?




       6.  What legal and other  institutional  methods of regulating





waste discharges,  reducing collection costs,  etc. were  considered?





       7.  Are cost estimates presented for  all feasible alternatives,





and are they consistent with generalized cost curves for the area?
                                 12

-------
       Although total cost is a basic criterion for  system selection,





reliability and flexibility criteria are also important.  These latter





criteria  include the contributions of the entire system, or individual




projects, toward achieving and maintaining water quality goals, given





continually changing conditions.  The possibility of utilizing present




facilities,  where upgrading may be the most cost-effective solution,




should be a first consideration. And,  opportunities for reuse and





recycling, or perhaps land disposal of wastewater, must also be




explored,  especially where there is a  resource management





need for such water conservation.  (These subjects are more fully





discussed  in Chapter  IV.)




       The first step in assembling a  cost effective wastewater systems




configuration is to determine the number and location of treatment




plants within the metro/regional planning area and the economics





of a possible move from the old system to a new system.  Then, the




extent that the systems configuration  should serve all the area's





municipal  and industrial waste sources and whether or not to com-





bine municipal and industrial treatment must be determined.  As




the systems configuration assumes shape, these factors and issues




must be  reexamined to consider the changing environmental and




social issues and conditions bearing upon the planning decisions.
                                 13

-------
System Components and Sites





       Since a metro or regional waste treatment system will generally





contain the basic components of sewers, pumping stations,  and  treat-





ment facilities, the cost effective plan or project will consist of a mix





of those components.  Selection of the components will be based on a





systematic comparison of the range of alternatives.





       Identification of acceptable and available treatment sites, along





with tributary areas to these sites,  should be made with an eye  to pos-





sible integration into the existing system or to centralization, if desired.





Evaluation of alternative combinations utilizing subsets of the available





sites will yield a single cost-effective solution.   Although





costs will be an important parameter, continuous recognition must be





given to the importance of relevant environmental and  social factors.





       This analysis is rigorous and embodies  the entire spectrum of





water quality management planning.  There  is no general criteria which





permits screening of alternatives.   The assessment of each site and





each area is unique.





       When evaluating the  system for  water disposal  (rather than land





disposal)  of the effluents and when deciding between a decentralized or a





centralized system, the principal tradeoff involves the economies of





scale of larger treatment facilities versus the added costs of conveying





the wastewater.  The conveyance costs are largely a function of dis-





tance, gradient,  soil type,  and volume, whereas the treatment  costs







                                  14

-------
vary with the process selected, volume of wastewater, and the organic





load.   Effluent limitations, based on meeting receiving water quality





standards, or other applicable criteria will, of course,  determine the





process selected.








Combined Municipal-Industrial Systems





       In addressing all forms of pollution in an areawide plan, a fun-





damental issue concerns whether the industrial wastes should be treated





separately or served by the municipal  system.  In resolving this issue,





each industry should be evaluated independently in terms of its interest in





and availability of service by the municipal  system, the  quantity and





characteristics of its waste,  and the extent  of any pretreatment required.





       Specific questions to bear in mind:





       1.  Is the  industry  interested in having its  wastes treated by





the municipal system?





       2.  What is the quantity and nature of the industry's discharges?





       3.  Are in-plant changes to minimize waste possible?





       4.  What pretreatment requirements are necessary before





discharge into the municipal  system?





       5.  Has water  recycling been investigated9





       6.  Has product recovery been  investigated?





       Industrial economics  regard water as a  process  input and treatment
                                 15

-------
of existing discharges is considered as only one option for pollution




abatement.   Process changes,  perhaps effected in answer to pre-





treatment requirements, are another alternative.  Water reuse and




by-product recovery within the plant are some  beneficial possibilities,




along with recycling or  in-plant modifications in lieu of pretreatment





and discharge to the municipal system.




       Central to resolution of the issue of creating a joint municipal-




industrial system is the question:   Has the analysis of alternatives  in-





cluded examination  of the total pollution abatement costs associated





with separate,  partially integrated, and totally integrated municipal-





industrial systems?




       From a cost-effective  viewpoint,  the goal of pollution control





is to accomplish abatement at a minimum total cost.   Therefore, the




strategy to be followed must consider  all costs within the planning





area.  Often joint municipal-industrial systems will result in minimiz-





ing public, as well as private,  costs because of the economies of




scale in  constructing and operating larger facilities.







Individual vs. Central Treatment Systems




       For  scattered,  outlying settlements and small, isolated com-




munities, the opportunities may not be available to join into a
                                  16

-------
regional or metropolitan wastewater  system.  Generally, their options





for controlling wastewater sources are limited.  If the community is




currently sewered and growth is occurring,  the local jurisdiction




may upgrade or expand the present treatment facilities,  extend ser-





vice to new users, or combine these  actions.  If not sewered,  the





community may develop sewers and treatment facilities  or rely on




the existing facilities (presumably on-site septic tanks and soil ab-





sorption systems.)





       A low-density community with limited or no prospects  for





growth,  and which is  sewered by individual units,  generally has little




reason to develop a centralized sewerage system if the present facilities





are not causing a water pollution problem or creating a significant nui-




sance.  Even if these problems do exist,  perhaps they could be best





solved by a community-operated program of maintenance or reinstal-




lation of drain fields.  However,  at the same time, all communities




must guard against groundwater contamination from septic tanks




and otherwise ensure that water quality standards  can be achieved




and maintained.



        If a centralized system is needed, none of the options available




to such small communities are particularly attractive because of the




high unit costs for providing a collection system and treatment facility




for serving small quantities  of wastewater.  In addition  to costs,
                                  17

-------
comparison of treatment processes should be based in large part upon





their reliability in continually achieving design treatment levels to pro-




tect the receiving waters.





       The following questions are designed to determine if  soil




absorption units or a centralized treatment system is needed.




       1.  Are there problems associated with continuing to  add septic




tanks within the service area?





       2.  Can these problems be solved with a community-operated





program of renovation,  proper design and  reinstallation of drain fields,




and  scheduled maintenance ?





       3.  Is groundwater protected?  Recent experience with septic




tanks indicates that soil permeability tests are more  important than





percolation tests in determining suitability.  Revised  criteria for





septic tank and drain field  sizing may alleviate the problem  of





"creeping failure. "




       4.  Are dwellings clustered in the service area?  If  so,  fewer




but larger septic tank facilities serving cluster developments would reduce




costs compared to individual units.  Larger units may also justify a central




sludge facility.  (See Mitre Corporation report entitled Selected Economic




and Environmental Aspects of Individual Wastewater Treatment Systems,




March 1972.)

-------
       5.  What are the advantages,  if any,  in installing sewers and





a central treatment plant in a community not now sewered  in terms





of meeting water quality standards,  health and other environmental





impacts, overall community goals, and capital-operating costs?





       6.  Can  a small  community operate a relatively complex





sewage treatment plant  at an acceptable level of effectiveness  and





reliability ?
                                  19

-------
               IV.  Selecting the Treatment Process







       Determining and selecting the optimum treatment process for





a given site involves balancing considerations of cost,  performance





reliability,  opportunities for reuse and recycling,  and mode of disposal




of the treatment facility effluent and sludge product.  Wastewater




that is not recycled within the system is available for replenishment





of either the groundwater or surface water sources or for meeting





local needs for irrigation.  The type of treatment process selected--





whether physical, biological, or chemical,  or some combination of




these--will depend upon the cost-effective solution of the above consider-





ations.







Upgrading the Present Facility




       One means of meeting both the short and long term demand for





wastewater treatment is to upgrade or expand the existing facilities.




        The possibility of expanding existing wastewater treatment





facilities  should always be considered in developing  a regional system.




Expansion of such facilities may be particularly attractive to minimize




the impact of a system upon the local environment.  Generally,  exist-




ing urban development in the vicinity of present treatment has adjusted





to the facility and the expansion of this facility might not cause as much





of an impact as developing new facilities at different locations.
                                 20

-------
       Upgrading existing treatment facilities may be economically





accomplished by merely using available facilities more efficiently.





Some examples might be replacing filter stones with synthetic filter





media,  pure oxygen aeration in the activated sludge process, chemical





addition to increase sedimentation efficiencies,  the  conversion of a





low-rate trickling filter to high rate  application, and use of flow





equalization facilities.  In some instances, upgrading may provide





a short-term solution to an existing water quality problem while  a





longer-term solution is being developed.  In  other instances, upgrading





of existing facilities may  also provide a long-term solution if influent





flows to the plant are  limited  by local zoning, other controls on growth,





or diversion of excess flows to  other treatment  plants.  More detailed





information on upgrading  is available in an EPA design manual en-





titled Upgrading of Existing Wastewater Treatment Plants (1972).





       Questions pertaining to the upgrading or expansion of treatment





plants:





       1.  Does an immediate water  quality problem exist and does the





plan include an interim solution9





       2.  Can the problem be met during the interim period through





upgrading of existing facilities ?





       3.  Do the alternative  solutions incorporate upgrading or





expanding the existing  treatment facilities?
                                  21

-------
Reliability and Flexibility





       The reliability of a wastewater treatment project or system is





determined by two major measurements:  (1) Its ability to perform





its designed function over a range of influent conditions  within the





system,  and (2) Its ability to contribute  as intended to the achievement





of water quality goals and standards.  The first point relates to the





reliability of the design and operation of a  specific facility as discussed





in the Guidelines for Design, Operation  and Maintenance (EPA).





The  second point relates to the adequacy of performance over time.





Engineering excellence  in facility design and operation cannot assure





reliability in maintaining the water quality standards if performance





requirements are not well defined by a management plan for the basin





and the metro/regional  area.





       In evaluating  a series of alternatives  for a wastewater system or





for  individual projects,  the EPA Design Guidelines emphasize the need





for  continuous reliability of performance.  Different systems, treatment





processes,  size of facilities, modes of  effluent disposal, and other





related factors can result in different levels  of reliability in protecting





water quality.   These different levels of reliability should be considered





either  analytically or subjectively in a comparison of alternative





solutions.
                                  22

-------
        To determine performance reliability the planner should ask:





        1.  Are the facility performance requirements necessary to





meet water quality standards and other defined goals clearly specified





for the planning period ?




        2.  Does the comparison of alternative solutions recognize  dif-




ferences in reliability of performance among the alternatives?




        3.  Were these differences considered in selecting the recom-





mended solution?





        The quality of flexibility is as necessary as reliability in plan-





ning for implementing timely changes in a treatment system.  To





include flexibility in his plan,  the planner should determine:





        1.  If economic and social factors and goals change,  can




in-stream disposal be readily converted to land-based disposal?





        2.  Do the treatment sites include adequate space or allow





additional land acquisition to permit process  expansions or changes?





        The EPA Design Guidelines address the need for flexibility  in





a treatment facility  to provide for efficiency in operation and maintenance.




In addition, consideration must be given to the possible requirement for




major changes in the system responsive to varying overall objectives.




Social objectives for water quality management, and economic and
                                 23

-------
technological conditions have changed in the past and will undoubtedly




change in the future.







Reuse of Wastewater
       In many parts of the country—particularly the western sbates,





metropolitan areas, and coastal zones — serious water quantity shortages





exist or are anticipated.  In these areas, demands for water are in-




creasing for  such uses  as agricultural irrigation,  industrial processing





and cooling,  parks  and  recreation developments, and groundwater





replenishment.  Furthermore,  high levels  of wastewater treatment





are usually required in these  areas to meet the water quality standards





or goals.  In many  instances the increasing use demands on a decreas-




ing water supply justify wastewater reuse and the  added  costs of




further treatment,  if required,  and conveyance to  the point  of need.





       Some planning questions pertinent to wastewater  reuse:





       1.  Are water resource problems identified?




       2.  Is there a limited water  resource in the area, and is this




reflected  in a demand or potential demand for wastewater reuse?




       3.  Are reuse alternatives considered?




       4.  Are the  added costs  of treatment and conveyance facilities





shown?
                                24

-------
       5.  Are such costs competitive with alternative sources of water





supply in the area for these uses ?





       6.  Are there advantages to meeting water quality standards





by reuse rather than discharge directly to  a receiving stream?





       7.  Conversely, would reuse  lead to water deficiencies in the





receiving stream?








Water Disposal vs. Land Disposal of Effluent





       Closely aligned to the issue of wastewater recycling is the issue





of whether the  treated effluent should be disposed of in water or on land.





This issue assumes greater importance in the same areas where recycling





needs are the greatest—namely arid regions, urban centers, and





coastal zones.





       Land disposal of wastes is usually dictated by a combination of





economic and water quality/quantity  factors.  This is  particularly true





for  irrigation alternatives where  the economic value of water can off-





set  possible additional  costs for water conveyance to the use point and





for  more advanced treatment, if required.  Other forms of land dis-





posal may be warranted to replenish groundwater supplies as well as





to meet in-stream water quality standards.  Depending upon local





conditions  and  the quality of the effluent, such land disposal can be





accomplished through intensive spray irrigation,  surface infiltration





ponds, and  recharge wells.  Each technique would utilize the soil








                                  25

-------
for filtering and further purification.  But,  care must be taken to





avoid groundwater contamination with disease organisms or toxic





elements;  also, soil contamination with grease, oil or heavy metals.





       In evaluating effluent disposal at inland locations, the impact





of such disposal upon the hydrological  system of the river basin encom-





passing the study area is important.  Land disposal would affect flow





levels in receiving streams especially during low-flow periods,  de-





pending upon the location and type  of disposal techniques used.  Many





land disposal methods impose additional evapotranspiration losses





on the hydrologic system — losses which would not have occurred from





discharging directly to a receiving stream.  This is particularly true





where wastewater is used for irrigation.  The specific effects of such





losses upon low-flow periods would vary among basins depending upon





localized hydrologic, geologic, and climatic conditions, but this loss





factor should be recognized when considering large-scale  land disposal





alternatives.





       Specific questions pertinent to land disposal of effluent:





       1.   Could the groundwater depletion problem be better solved





through curtailment of withdrawals in favor of alternative  water supply





sources ?





       2.  For irrigation uses to be publicly developed, have all costs
                                 26

-------
associated with land acquisition and relocations according to the





Relocations Act been included,  together with evaluations of expected





economic returns from such irrigation?





        3.  Could this land be better used for other purposes?





        4.  In lieu of publicly owned irrigation developments, has the





option of selling the wastewater to private irrigation interests also





been explored ?





        5.  If the recommended solution is an in-stream disposal of the





effluent, can it be readily converted to a land-use disposal should





economic and social desires change?








Ultimate Disposal of Liquid,  Sludge,  and Other Wastes





        Whatever wastewater treatment strategy is implemented, it





will result in sludge, debris, and liquid effluents.   The final disposal





of these products must be accomplished within stringent environmental





limits. This limitation should  be recognized throughout the system and





process selection phases.





        The evaluation of land versus a water-based disposal system





must  consider  the assimilative waste capacity  of the resource.  Fre-





quently the assimilative capacity of a stream is  substantially increased





at a downstream location at a point below its confluence with a major





tributary.  Transmission of the effluent to that location could permit
                                 27

-------
a lesser degree of treatment.  Likewise,  extension of an ocean outfall




into an area with a prevailing outward current and increased depth





would lessen the impact upon the receiving waters,  The disposal of





treated  sludge involves similarly interrelated economic and environ-




mental factors.





       Questions pertaining to the ultimate disposal of treatment




materials:





       1.  Eave alternative locations  and lengths of effluent outfalls





been considered?





       2.  Has a cost advantage been gained  by  outfall design or location





by virtue  of added dilution?




       3.  Would transport of the treated  effluent out of the immediate




area or hydrologic basin be a more economical  alternative, presuming





inadequate streamflows at the proposed treatment plant site?





       4,  If sludge,  debris and other wastes are to be transported out




of the immediate area or river  basin, have all possible environmental




and legal  problems been investigated?




       5.  What are the costs of various methods of processing and disposal?




       6.  What are the environmental impacts  of those methods?




       7.  Have alternative locations for disposal of the treatment pro-





duct (processed sludge) been  identified?





       8.  Is  there an economic market for it?





       9.  If incineration is contemplated, what impact will this have on





air quality?





                                 28

-------
               V.  Scheduling Construction of Facilities







       The wastewater flow projections discussed in  Chapter II





define the time-related quantities of wastewater to be treated within





the planning area.  The means of selecting a cost-effective wastewater





systems configuration for treating these flows has also been  discussed.





Those selection procedures result in a system which defines the  general





location  and projected demand curve  for each facility  within the system.





       Determining schedules for sewering the service area and construct-





ing the treatment facilities must also be based on cost-effectiveness





criteria.  This involves a tradeoff between two basic approaches:





One is to construct smaller facilities initially  to meet short-term





demand, and schedule subsequent modular expansion and upgrading as





needed over time.  The  second is to construct a larger, total system





with substantial reserve  capacity to meet projected demand well  into





the future.  It should be emphasized that use of modulated construction





with relatively short design periods does not conflict with nor preclude





longer planning periods.





       The following questions are intended to determine whether the





plan or project under review was based upon adequate consideration of





the relationship between  overall facility costs  (both capital and operation)





and facility design period.
                                 29

-------
       1.  Is the estimated time for the plant or interceptors to reach




full capacity reasonable in the light of estimated growth rates and area





characteristics?  (See Appendix B for typical population growth rates.)




       2.  Does the plan consider modulated (stepped) construction of




individual components ?




       3.  Are the growth rates such that modulated construction





would be cost effective?







Short Design Periods





       The following factors suggest the use of relatively short design





periods in estimating  future capacity.




       1.   The inherent uncertainty in long-term forecasting of waste-





water quantities,  especially for areas undergoing rapid changes in





population and economic activities;





       2.  The possibility of phasing construction which could  result





in overall savings in debt service and  operating  costs;




       3.  The possibility of utilizing  new technology when it becomes




available;




       4,  The difficulty of achieving design removal efficiencies when




the capacity of a plant substantially exceeds the  wastewater volume





treated; and




       5.  Changes in social goals which may significantly alter future





waste management objectives.
                                  30

-------
       These considerations suggest that the capacity of a system should





extend only a short timeframe ahead of the projected wastewater demarci





to avoid large amounts of under-utilized investments in the system





and to keep options open  for flexibility in the future.   This is partic-





ularly important in systems which must meet a rapidly  expanding





wastewater treatment demand.








Long  Design Periods





       The four major factors which have encouraged local communities





to favor the use of larger initial capacities in the wastewater system to





meet  projected needs over  a longer design period are these:





       1,   Economies of  scale in constructing larger interceptors





and wastewater treatment facilities;





       2,  High inflation rates in wastewater facilities construction costs;





       3.  Uncertainties  in the future availability of Federal and state





construction funds; and





       4,  Increased opportunities for future community development; i. e. ,





removal of waste  treatment constraints on new  construction in the





building and industrial sectors.





       The economies of scale must be considered in the alternative





analysis and will be compared with increased future costs, discounted





to present worth,  in meeting future needs.  Community development
                                 31

-------
should be evaluated in the overall community-planned program, and




wastewater facilities are one of the services needed to  accommodate





the community development desired.





       The advantages and disadvantages of short vs. longer design




periods,  or modular  construction vs.  contruction of reserve capa,city




in a system, should be carefully weighed and balanced.  And, the





planner should also consider  the often not so obvious broader





environmental questions.  For example,  would building large





over-capacity into  sewer lines and treatment plants artificially





stimulate intensive community development?  This is a special




danger where sould land-use  planning and zoning do not exist or are




not enforced.







Financing




       The interplay between the cost factors in meeting both short and





long-term needs is very important.  The construction cost inflation





factor may well encourage local decisionmakers to choose a large




reserve capacity system.  The  substantial increase in  sewer construc-




tion during the past five years,  stimulated by steadily increasing  Federal




and  state  funding, has resulted  in escalating costs and  lengthening con-




struction  schedules.  With increased  funding likely in the future,  it is





reasonable to postulate a. near-term continuation of inflation in
                                32

-------
construction costs.   The physical ability of construction companies will





be heavily taxed to meet the demand for waste-water facilities,  but on




the other hand,  construction capacity should increase as funding in-




creases.  Projecting future inflation is hazardous, but it is reasonable





to anticipate a construction capacity adequate to meet construction




needs within the next five  years.





       Another financing factor is the relationship of inflation  expecta-





tion and municipal bond rates.  From the local viewpoint the cost of





financing (debt service) is  a decision criteria.  Since inflation  and





bonding rates (interest) are interrelated, high inflation rates usually




mean higher bonding rates. In making  its decision the municipality must




recognize that it may have to pay an increased debt service resulting





from  anticipated inflation.







Treatment Plants
       The relationship between maximum required capacity projected at





the end of the planning period  and  staged construction of treatment facil-





ities should be explored, especially in large plants.  In many cases, an





economic advantage is gained  by determining the facilities needed to





serve area urban development anticipated  at the end of the planning





period and by scheduling a sequence of modular developmentSof these





facilities to assure adequate capacity throughout the planning period.





Operational units would thus be  placed on line as modules so that the
                                  33

-------
capacity requirements are always met while at the same time avoiding





over capacity.  The module  size should be determined by analyzing





capital, and operating and maintenance costs for a range of conceivable





module sizes  and design periods.  The minimum time for design and  con-





struction  of a module and the type of projected growth place a lower





limit on the projection period for determining module size.  Five years





measured from the date of anticipated completion of construction is a





suggested lower limit.   This is judged to be the minimum time required





to design, fund, and construct a module.





        In general,  because of the  uncertainty attached to long-term





population projections and the problems  of planning in a dynamic environ-





ment,  the projection period  for a module should be inversely related  to





expected  demand growth.  For a community expecting virtually no addition-





al treatment requirements,  a projection period of up to  25  years may be





acceptable for facilities. In this case the module projection period





may coincide  with the planning period.  For a community which expects





to grow significantly, a  module projection period of more than ten to





fifteen years is usually  imprudent. Similarly, module design lives





should be inversely related to the  level of interest rates.








Interceptor Sewers





        Staged development of interceptor sewers involves two different





concepts — the modular development of a given line, and the extension of







                                  34

-------
lines as the service area grows.  Because of the nature of its construc-





tion, a given interceptor sewer is not as readily adapted to modular





construction as  a treatment plant.





       In an urban area with a high rate of growth, however, staged devel-





opment of an interceptor sewer including the development of parallel lines





should be considered and may be justified in terms of deferring invest-





ments until needed,  protecting against the uncertainty of long-term waste-





water projections,  and providing the flexibility to adjust to unforeseen





changes in growth patterns within the urban area.  This is particularly





true during periods  of high interest rates because a substantial portion





of interceptor costs result from debt service.  Furthermore, the exis-





tence of a large unused capacity in an interceptor line can,  in the absence





of a sound  land-use  plan and zoning,  induce intensive development incon-





sistent with good land use practices and the public desire.





       For areas  of high anticipated growth, design lives of interceptor





sewers of more than 20 to 25 years may not be prudent. Parallel lines





need not  be constructed on the same  right-of-way. Alternate routes





can be selected  for future development.  If plans call for the development





of two  or more parallel lines within a right-of-way, adequate safeguards





will be required to control other possible uses of the right-of-way.
                                 35

-------
             APPENDIX  A
     Review Questions for Planning



Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities

-------
                   Review Questions for Planning
             Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities
                    Projecting Waste-water Flows

Existing Flows

       Review and evaluation  of the existing wastewater flows should
provide answers to  several questions, including:

1.  Is there excessive infiltration into the system?

2.  Are there illegal storm water connections,  and is so,  what is
   being done about them ?

3.  Are sewer ordinances adequate and are they enforced?

4.  Are reported waste flows reasonable and are they based on
   actual in-plant measurements ?

5.  Are reported per capita waste loadings representative?

6.  How were they determined and is the method defensible?

Population

       In projecting population growth,  these questions should be
answered:

1.  Are projected population growth rates realistic?

2.  What is their basis?

3.  Do the  figures distinguish  between total population and sewered
   population ?

4.  How does the projection compare with existing data?

5.  If discrepancies exist, what caused  them?

6.  What, if any, land use constraints were considered in the population
    projections ?
                                 37

-------
Industry

       In projecting future wastewater flows planners should consider
questions concerning industrial connections to the municipal system,
such as:

1.  Do already connected industrial  sources expect their discharges
    to increase,  decrease, or  remain constant?

2.   Will the nature of discharges from connected industries change?

3.   What are the prospects of unconnected industries hooking up with
    the municipal system  in the future?

4.   What are the prospects of new industries locating in the area, and
    what  will this mean for industrial  service as well as increased
    domestic service?
          Assembling a Wastewater Systems Configuration

       During the system selection process, the planner examines
these questions:

1.  Has upgrading of existing facilities been considered?  What are
    the advantages and disadvantages?

2.  Has regionalization of facilities been considered?

3.  Has a combined  municipal-industrial waste treatment system been
    considered?

4,  Has recycling been considered?

5.  Has a soil disposal system been considered?

6.  What legal and other institutional methods of regulating waste dis-
     charges,  reducing collection costs,  etc.  were considered?

7.  Are cost estimates presented for all feasible alternatives, and
    are they consistent with generalized cost curves for the a.rea?
                                 38

-------
Combined Municipal-Industrial Systems

       The issue of whether or not industrial wastes should be treated
separately or served by the municipal system turns upon how the
following questions are answered:

1.  Is the industry interested in having its wastes treated by the
    municipal system?

2.  What is the quantity and nature of the industry's discharges?

3.  Are in-plant changes  to minimize waste possible?

4.  What pretreatment requirements are necessary before discharge
    into the municipal system?

5.  Has water recycling been investigated?

6.  Has product recovery been investigated?

7.  Has the analysis of alternatives included examination of the
    total pollution abatement costs associated with separate,  partial-
    ly integrated, and totally integrated municipal-industrial  systems?

Individual vs. Central Treatment Systems

       The following questions are designed to determine if soil
absorption units or a centralized treatment system is needed:

1.  Are there problems associated with continuing to add septic tanks
    within the service area?

2.  Can these problems be  solved with a community-operated program
    of renovation, proper design and  reinstallation of drain fields,
    and scheduled maintenance?

3.  Is groundwater protected?

4.  Are dwellings clustered in the  service area?

5.  What are the advantages, if any, in installing sewers and a central
    treatment plant in a community not now  sewered in terms of meeting
    water quality standards, health and other environmental impacts,
    overall community goals,  and capital-operating costs?
                                 39

-------
 6.  Can a small community operate a  relatively complex sewage treat-
    ment plant at an acceptable level of effectiveness and reliability?
             Selecting the Treatment Process

Upgrading the Present Facility

        Questions pertaining to the upgrading or expansion of trea.tment
plants:

1.  Does  an immediate water quality problem exist and does the plan
    include an interim solution?

2.  Can the problem be met during the interim  period through upgrading
    of existing facilities?

3.  Do  the alternative  solutions incorporate upgrading or expanding
    the  existing treatment facilities?

Reliability and  Flexibility

        To determine performance reliability the planner should ask:

1.  Are the facility performance requirements  necessary to meet
    water quality standards  and other defined goals clearly specified
    for the planning period?

2.  Does  the comparison of alternative solutions recognize differences
    in reliability of performance among  the alternatives?

3.  Were these differences considered in selecting the recommended
    solution ?

        To include flexibility in his plan,  the planner should determine:

1.  If economic and  social factors and goals change, can in-stream
    disposal be readily converted to land-based disposal?

2.  Do  the treatment sites include adequate space or allow additional
    land acquisition to permit process expansions or changes?
                                  40

-------
Reuse of Wastewater

       Some planning questions pertinent to wastewater reuse:

1.  Are water resource problems identified?

2.  Is there a limited water resource in the area, and is this reflected
    in a demand or potential demand for wastewater reuse?

3.  Are reuse alternatives  considered?

4.  Are the added costs of treatment and conveyance facilities shown?

5.  Are such costs competitive with alternative sources of water
    supply in the area for these uses?

6.  Are there advantages to meeting water quality standards by reuse
    rather than discharge directly to a receiving stream?

7.  Conversely, would  reuse lead to water deficiencies in the  receiving
    stream ?

Water Disposal vs. Land Disposal of Effluent

       Questions pertinent to land disposal of effluent

1.  Could the groundwater depletion problem be better solved  through
    curtailment of withdrawals  in favor of alternative water  supply
    sources ?

2.  For irrigation uses to be publicly developed, have all costs
    associated with land acquisition and relocations  according to the
    Relocations Act been included, together with evaluations of
    expected economic  returns  from such irrigation?

~*.  Could this land be better used for other purposes?

4.  In lieu of publicly owned irrigation developments,  has the  option
    of selling the wastewater to private irrigation interests also
    been explored ?

5.  If the  recommended solution is an m-stream disposal of the effluent,
    can it be readily  converted to a land-use disposal should economic
    and social desires change?
                                 41

-------
Ultimate Disposal of Liquid,  Sludge, and Other Wastes

       Questions pertaining to the ultimate disposal of treatment
materials:

1,  Have alternative locations and lengths of effluent outfalls been
    considered ?

2.  Has a cost advantage been gained by  outfall design or location by
    virtue of added dilution?

3.  Would transport of the treated effluent  out of the immediate area or
    hydrologic basin be a more  economical alternative,  presuming
    inadequate streamflows at the proposed treatment plant  site?

4.  If sludge, debris and other wastes  are  to be transported out of
    the immediate area or river basin, have all possible environmental
    and legal problems been investigated?

5.  What are the costs of various methods  of processing and disposal?

6.  What are the environmental impacts  of those methods?

7.  Have alternative locations for disposal of the treatment  product
    (processed sludge) been  identified ?

8.  Is there  an economic market for it?

9.  If incineration is contemplated, what impact will this have on
    air quality?
               Scheduling Construction of Facilities

        The following questions are intended to determine whether the
plan or project under review was based upon adequate  consideration
of the relationship between overall facility costs (both  capital and
operation) and facility design period:

1.  Is the estimated time for the plant or interceptors  to reach full
    capacity reasonable in the light of estimated growth rates and
    area characteristics?

2.  Does  the plan consider modulated (stepped) construction of individual
    components ?
 3,  Are the growth rates such that modulated construction  would be  cost
     effect ive ?

                                42

-------
             APPENDIX  B
Summary of National Population Trends

-------
           Summary of National Population Trends
General
       Population data contained in this Appendix may be useful in




evaluating population and associated wastewater flow projections of a





particular planning area or project service area.  The data provide





a measure of recent growth experience for regions,  States,  and local-





ities which may be compared to short-term growth rates for a





a particular area.  The use of this data should not be considered valid





for long-term trends in that such growth would likely be influenced by





changing economic and demographic conditions of the area.  Many




regions,  States,  and areas can be  expected to experience a long-term





reduction in population growth rates similar to that anticipated  for





the entire nation.  This decline should be factored into the long-term





projections for a particular area,  if appropriate.







Metropolitan Areas





       Table I contains the growth rates that occurred during the 1960's




for each of the States,  Similarly,  census data for Standard Metropolitan




Service Areas (SMSA's) for that decade are contained in Table II.  The




growth rates shown for both of these tables represent an average  annual




arithmetic change in percent for the ten-year  period as related to the




I960 population.
                                 44

-------
       The Environmental Protection Agency, in cooperation with the





Office of Business Economics, U.S.  Department of Commerce, is pre-





paring population projections for the SMSA's  through year 2000 which





should provide guidance for the review of long-term projections of a





metropolitan area,







Non-Metropolitan Areas





       For communities in counties which are not part of SMSA's, pop-




ulation trends for the I960 decade have been evaluated  according to the size





of the principal municipality within each county.   Figures 1-10 show a





breakdown in growth trends for non-SMSA counties for each of the ten





EPA regions.   These histograms are  subdivided into three groups based





on the population of the largest municipality within the county of less than





10, 000; 10, 000 to 25, 000; and 25, 000 to  50, 000.  Each  histogram bar in-





dicates the percentage of the counties that fall within a specified range





of annual population change.   Thus,  for each histogram, the percentages





add up to 100.   In addition to the distribution, the range and median of





the  growth rates are given for each of the population groups.





       A comparison of these  histograms in  Figure 11  shows that  growth





rates in non-SMSA areas are generally  low (or negative), differ consider-





ably among regions, and are substantially lower than for SMSA centers.





For example,  the median annual growth rate for all non-SMSA counties





in the  Denver  Region was between -0. 5  to -1. 0 percent as compared to
                                 45

-------
1. 5 to 2. 0 percent in the San Francisco Region.  Also, within a given




region the growth rates may differ considerably among the three





groups (such as the  Denver Region) while other regions are experienc-




ing little differences among these groups (such as Chicago).





       These graphs are intended to be used in screening population




projections contained in  plans.
                                46

-------
                       Table 1.--1970 POPULATION BY STATE
        State
 Resident
Population
    (1)
Population
 Abroad!/
  (2)
Population used
 as basis for
 apportionment
(3) = (1) 4- (2)
           United States.   203,184,772
                    1,580,998
                      204,002,799
 Alabama	     3,444,165            31,720              3,475,885
 Alaska	       302,173             1,894                304,067
 Arizona	     1,772,482            15,138              1,787,620
 Arkansas	     1,923,295            19,008              1,942,303
 California	    19,953,134           145,729             20,098,863

 Colorado	     2,207,259            19,512              2,226,771
 Connecticut	     3,032,217            18,476              3,050,693
 Delaware	       548,104             3,824                551,928
 District  of  Columbia	       756,510             6,461
 Florida	     6,789,443            66,259              6,855,702

 Georgia	     4,589,575            37,731              4,627,306
 Hawaii	       769,913            14,988                784,901
 Idaho	       713,008             6,913                719,921
 Illinois	    11,113,976            70,344             11,184,320
 Indiana	     5,193,669            34,487              5,228,156

 Iowa	     2,825,041            21,879              2,846,920
 Kansas	     2,249,071            16,775              2,265,846
 Kentucky	     3,219,311            27,170              3,246,481
 Louisiana	     3,643,180            28,828              3,672,008
 Maine	       993,663            12,657              1,006,320

 Maryland	     3,922,399            31,299              3,953,698
 Massachusetts	     5,689,170            37,506              5,726,676
 Michigan	     8,875,083            62,113              8,937,196
 Minnesota	     3,805,069            28,104              3,833,173
 Mississippi	     2,216,912            16,936              2,233,848

 Missouri	     4,677,399            40,635              4',718,034
 Montana	       694,409             7,164                701,573
 Nebraska	     1,483,791            13,029              1,496,820
 Nevada	       488,738             3,658                492,396
 New Hampshire	       737,681             8,603                 746,284

 New Jersey	     7,168,164            39,871               7,208,035
 New Mexico	     1,016,000            10,664               1,026,664
 New York	    18,190,740            96,789              18,287,529
 North  Carolina	     5,082,059            43,171               5,125,230
 North   Dakota	       617,761             6,420                 624,181

 Ohio	    10,652,017            78,183              10,730,200
 Oklahoma	     2,559,253            26,233               2,585,486
 Oregon	     2,091,385            19,425               2,110,810
 Pennsylvania	    11,793,909            90,405              11,884,314
 Rhode  Island	       949,723             6,075                 957,798

 South  Carolina	     2,590,516            26,804               2,617,320
 South  Dakota	       666,257             6,990                 673,247
 Tennessee	     3,924,164            36,896               3,961,060
 Texas	   11,196,730          102,057              11,298,787
 Utah	     1,059,273             8,537               1,067,810

 Vermont	      444,732             3,595                448,327
 Virginia	    4,648,494           42,248              4,690,742
Washington	    3,409,169           34,318              3,443,487
West Virginia	    1,744,237           19,094              1,763,331
 Wisconsin	    4,417,933           29,080              4,447,013
Wyoming	      332,416            3,303                335,719
 17 Includes: (a) Members of  the  Armed Forces;  (b)  Civilian employees of any Federal
   department or agency who  are citizens of the  United  States or who  have a  home
   State;  (c) Spouses and children who are living abroad with persons  classified
   in  groups (a) and (b); (d)  Other relatives living abroad with persons in groups
   (a) and (b) who are citizens of the United States or have a home  State.
 2/ Excludes the District of  Columbia, The total  including the District of Columbia
   is  204,765,770.                        4?

-------
                               TABLE 2 - POPULATION CHANGE
                        STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS
                                       1960-70


                                         POP 70      POP 60      CHG  60-70   ANN  PCT  CHG

ABILENE, TEX.                            114.0       120.4         -6.4          -0.5
AKRON, OHIO                              679.2       605.4         73.8           1.2
ALBANY, GA.                               89.6        75.7         13.9           1.8
ALBANY-SCHENECTADY-TROY, N.Y.             720.8       657.5         63.3           1.0
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.                        315.8       262.2         53.6           2.0

ALLENTOWN-BETHLEHEM-EASTON, PA.-N.J.     543.5       492.2         51.3           1.0
ALTOONA, PA.                             135.4       137.3         -1.9          -0.1
AMARILLO, TEX.                           144.4       149.5         -5.1          -0.3
ANAHEIM-SANTA ANA-GARDEN GROVE, CALIF.  1420.4       703.9         716.5          10.2
ANDERSON, IND.                           138.5       125.8         12.7           1.0

ANN ARBOR, MICH.                         234.1       172.4         61.7           3.6
APPLETON-OSHKOSH, WIS.                   276.9       232.0         44.9           1.9
AUGUSTA, GA. -S.C.                       253.5       216.6         36.9           1.7
AUSTIN, TEX.                             295.5       212.1         83.4           3.9
ASHEVILLE, NC.                           145.1       130.1         15.0           1.2

ATLANTA, GA.                            1390.2      1017.2         373.0           3.7
ATLANTIC CITY, N.J.                      175.0       160.9         14.1           0.9
BAKERSFIELD, CALIF.                      329.2       292.0         37.2           1  3
BALTIMORE, HD.                          2070.7      1803.7         267.0           1,5
BATON ROUGE, LA.                         285.2       230.1         55.1           2.4

BAY CITY, MICH.                          117.3       107.0         10.3           1.0
BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR-ORANGE, TEX.         315.9       306.0           9.9           0  3
BILLINGS, MONT.                           87.4        79.0           8.4           1  1
BILOXI-GULFPORT, MISS.                   134.6       119.5         15.1           1.3
BINGHAMTON, N.Y. -PA.                     302.7       283.6         19.1           0.7

BIRMINGHAM, ALA.                         739.3       721.2         18.1           0.3
BLOOMINGTON,-NORMAL, ILL.                 104.4        83.9         20.5           2.4
BOIS CITY, IOWA                          112.2        93.5         18.7           2.0
BOSTON, MASS.                           2753.7      2595.5         158.2           0.6
BRIDGEPORT, CONN.                        389.2       338.0         51.2           1.5

BRISTOL, CONN.                            65.8        54.5         11.3           2.1
BROCKTON, MASS.                          189.8       149.5         40.3           2.7
BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN-SAN  BENITO.TEX.     140.4       151.1          -10.7          -0.7
BRYAN-COLLEGE STATION, TEX.               58.0        44.9         13.1           29
BUFFALO, N.Y.                           1349.2      1306.9         42.3           0.3

CANTON, OHIO                             372.2       340.3         31.9           0.9
CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA                       163.2       136.9         26.3           1.9
                                              48

-------
                                         POP  70      POP  60      CHG  66-70  ANN  PCT  CHG

CHAMPAIGN-URBANA, ILL.                   163.3        132.4           30.9          2.3
CHARLESTON, S.C.                         303.9        254.6           49.3          1.9
CHARLESTON, W. VA.                       229.5        252.9         -23.4          -0.9

CHARLOTTE, N.C.                          409.4        316.8           92.6          2.9
CHATTANOOGA, TENN.-GA.                   304.9        283.2           21.7          0.8
CHICAGO, ILL.                           6978.9       6220.9         758.0          1.2
CINCINNATI, OHIO                        1384.9       1268.5         116.4          0.9
CLEVELAND, OHIO                         2064.2       1090.5         154.7          0.8
                                                                                 6.4
COLORADO SPRINGS, COL.                   236.0        143.7           92.3          6.4
COLUMBIA, S.C.                           322.9        260.8           62.1          2.4
COLUMBIA, MO.                             80.9         55.2           25.7          4.7
COLUMBUS, GA.-ALA.                       238.6        218.0           20.6          0.9
COLUMBUS, OHIO                           916.2        754.9         161.3          2.1

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEX.                      284.8        266.6           18.2          0.7
DALLAS.TEXAS                            1555.9       1119.4         436.5          3.9
DANBURY, CONN.                            78.4         54.3           24.1          4.4
DAVENPORT-ROCK ISLAND-MOLINE,IOWA-ILL.    362.6        319.4           43.2          1.4
DAYTON, OHIO                             850.3        727.1         123.2          1.7

DECATUR, ILL.                            125.0        118.3           6.7          0.6
DENVER. COLO.                           1227.5        929.4         298.1          2.2
DES MOINES, IOWA                         286.1        266.3           19.8          0.7
DETROIT, MICH.                          4199.0       3762.4           436.6         1.2
DUBUQUE, IOWA                             90.6         80.0           10.6          1.3

DULUTH-SUPERIOR, MINN-WIS,                265.4        276.6         -11.2          -0.4
DURHAM, N.C.                             190.4        155.0           35.4          2.3
EL PASO, TEXAS                           359.3        314.1           45.2          1.4
ERIE, PA.                                263.7        250.7           13.0          0.5
EUGENE, OREGON                           213.4        162.9           50.5          3.1

EVANSVILLE, IND.-KY.                      232.8        222.9           9.9          0.4
FALL RIVER, MASS. -R.I.                   150.5        138.2           12.3          0.9
FARGO-MOORHEAD, N.D.  -MINN.               120.2        106.0           14.2          1.3
FAYETTEVILLE.N.C.                        212.0        148.4           63.6          4.3
FITCHBURG-LEOMINSTER, MASS.                97.2         90.2           7.0          0.8

FLINT,MICH                               496.7        416.2           80.5          1.9
FORT SMITH, ARK.-OKLA.                   160.4        135.1           25.3          1.9
FORT WAYNE, IND.                         280.5        232.2           48.3          2.1
FORT WORTH, TEXAS                        762.1        573.2         188.9          3.3
FRESNO, CALIF.                           413.1        365.9           47.2          1.3
                                              49

-------
                                         POP 70      POP 60     CHG 60-70   ANN PCT CHG

FT. LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD, FLA.           620.1       333.9         286.2          8.6
6ADSDEN, ALA.                             94.1        97.0          -2.9         -0.3
GAINESVILLE, FLA.                        104.8        74.1          30.7          4.1
GALVESTON-TEXAS CITY, TEX.               169.8       140.4          29.4          2.1
GARY-HAMMOND-EAST CHICAGO, IND.          633.4       573.5          59.9          1.0

GRAND RAPIDS, MICH.                      539.2       461.9          77.3          1.7
GREAT FALLS, MONT.                        81.8        73.4           8.4          1.1
GREEN BAY, WIS.                          158.2       125.1          33.1          2.6
GREENSBORO-WINSTON-SALEM-HIGH POINT.NC.  603.9       520.2          83.7          1.6
GREENVILLE, S.C.                         299.5       255.8          43.7          1.7

HAMILTON-MIDDLETOWN, OHIO                226.2       199.1          27.1          1.4
HARRISBURG, PA.                          410.6       371.7          38.9          1.0
HARTFORD, CONN.                          663.9       549.2         114.7          2.1
HONOLULU, HAWAII                         630.5       500.4         130.1          2.6
HOUSTON, TEXAS                          1985.0      1418.3         566.7          4.0

HUNTINGTON-ASHLAND, W. VA.-KY.-OHIO      253.7       254.8          -1.1         -0.0
HUNTSVILLE, ALA.                         228.2       153.9          74.3          4.8
INDIANAPOLIS, IND.                      1109.9       944.5         165.4          1.8
JERSEY CITY, N.J.                        609.3       610.7          -1.4         -0.0
JACKSON, MICH.                           143.3       132.0          11.3          0.9

JACKSON, MISS.                           258.9       221.4          37.5          1.7
JACKSONVILLE, FLA.                       528.9       455.4          73.5          1.6
JOHNSTOWN, PA.                           262.8       280.7         -17.9         -0.6
KALAMAZOO, MICH.                         201.6       169.7          31.9          1.9
KANSAS CITY, MO.-KAN.                   1256.6      1092.5         164.1          1.5

KENDSHA, WIS.                            117.9       100.6          17.3          1.7
KNOXVILLE, TENN.                         400.3       368.1          32.2          0.9
LA CROSSE, WIS.                           80.5        72.5           8.0          1.1
LAFAYETTE, LA.                           111.7        84.7          27.0          3.2
LAFAYETTE, W. LAFAYETTE, IND.            109.4        89.1          20.3          2.3

LAKE CHARLES, LA.                        145.4       145.5          -0,1         -0.0
LANCASTER, PA.                           319.7       278.4          41.3          1.5
LANSING, MICH.                           378.4       298.9          79.5          2.7
LAREDO, TEXAS                             72.9        64.8           8.1          1.3
LAS VEGAS, NEV.                          273.3       127.0         146.3         11.5

LAWRENCE-HAVERHILL, MASS.-N.H.           232.4       199.1          33.3          1.7
LAWTON, OKLA.                            108.1        90.8          17.3          1.9
LEWISTON-AUBURN, ME.                      72.5        70.3           2.2          0.3
LEXINGTON, KY.                           174.3       131.9          42.4          3.2
LIMA, OHIO                               171.5       160.9          10.6          0.7
                                              50

-------
                                         POP   70      POP  60     CHG 60-70  ANN PCT CHG

LINCOLN, NEBR.                           168.0        155.3          12.7          0.8
LITTLE ROCK-NORTH LITTLE ROCK, ARK       323 3        271 9          51  4          19
LORAIN-ELYRIA, OHIO                      256!8        21?!5          39*.3          1 is
LOS ANGELES-LONG BEACH, CALIF.         7032.1      6038.8         993.3          1 6
LOUISVILLE, KY.-IND.                     826.6        725.1         101.5          K4

LOWELL, MASS.                            212.9        164.2          48.7          3.0
LUBBOCK.TEX.                            179.3        156>3          23.0          15
LYNCHBURG, VA.                           123.5        110.7          12.8          1.2
riACON, GA.                               206.3        180.4          25.9          1.4
MADISON, WIS.                            290.3        222.1          68.2          3.1

MANCHESTER, N.H.                         108.5        102.9           5.6          0.5
MANSFIELD, OHIO                          130.0        117.8          12.2          1.0
MCALLEN-PHARR-EDINBURG.TEX.             181.5        180.9           0.6          00
MEMPHIS, TENN.-ARK.                      770.1        674.6          95.5          1.4
MERIDEN, CONN.                           56.0        51.9           4.1          0.8

MIAMI, FLA.                            1267.8        935.0         332.8          3.6
MIDLAND, TEX.                            65.4        67.8          .2.4         -0.4
MILWAUKEE. WIS.                        H03.9      1278.8         125.1          1.0
MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL, MINN.             18i3.6      1482.0         331.6          2.2
MOBILE, ALA.                             376.7        363.4          13.3          0.4

MODESTO, CALIF.                          194.5        157.3          37.2          2.4
MONROE, LA.                              115.4        101.7          13.7          1.3
MONTGOMERY, ALA.                         201.3        199.7           1.6          0.1
MUNCIE, IND.                             129.2        110.9          18.3          1.7
MUSKEGON-MUSKEGON HGTS. MICH.             157.4        149.9           7,5          0.5

NASHVILLE, TENN.                         540.9        463.6          77.3          1.7
NASHUA, N.H.                             66.5        45.0          21.5          4.8
NEWARK, N.J.                           1856.6      1689.4         167.2          1.0
NEW BEDFORD, MASS.                       152.6        143.2           9.4          0.7
NEW BRITAIN, CONN.                       145.3        129.4          15.9          1.2

NEW HAVEN, CONN.,                        355.5        320.8          34.7          1.1
NEW LONDON-GROTON-MORWICH, CONN.          208 7        171 0          37  7          22
NEWPORT NEWS-HAMPTON, VA.                292*2        244*5          67*7          3*0
NEW ORLEANS, LA.                       1046'5        907.1         139.4          l',S
NEW YORK, N.Y.                        11528.6     10694.1         834.0          0.8

NORFOLK, PORTSMOUTH, VA.                 680.6        578.5         102.1          1.8
NORWALK, CONN.                           120.1        96.8          23.3          2.4
ODESSA, TEX.                             91.8        91.0           0.8          0.1
OGDEN, UTAH                              126.3        110.7          13.6          1.4
OKLAHOMA, OKLA.                          640.9        511.8         129.1          2.5
                                              51

-------
                                         POP 70
POP  60  CHG 60-70    ANN  PCT CHG
OMAHA, NEBR. IOWA
ORLANDO, FLA.
OWENSBORO, ICY.
OXNARD-CONN.
PATERSON-CLIFTON-PASSAIC, N.J.

PENSACOLA, FLA.
PEORIA, ILL.
PETERSBURG-COLONIAL HEIGHTS, VA.
PHILADELPHIA, PA.
PHOENIX, ARIZ.

PINE BLUFF, ARK.
PITTSBURG, PA.
PITTSFIELD, MASS.
PORTLAND, ME.
PORTLAND, ORE.-WASH.

PROVIDENCE-PAWTUCKET-WARWICK, R.I. MASS
PROVO-OREM, UTAH
PUEBLO, COLO.
RACINE, WIS.
RALEIGH, N.C.

READING, PA.
RENO, NEV.
RICHMOND, VA.
ROANOKE, VA,
ROCHESTER, MINN.

ROCHESTER, N.Y.
ROCKFORD, ILL.
SACRAMENTO, CALIF.
SAGINAW, MICH.
SALEM, ORE.

SALINAS-MONTEREY, CALIF.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
SAN ANGELO, TEX.
SAN ANTONIO, TEX.
SAN BERNARDINO-RIVERSIDE-ONTARIO, CAL.

SAN DIEGO, CALIF.
SAN FRANCISCO-OAKLAND, CALIF.
SAN JOSE, CALIF.
SANTA BARBARA, CALIF.
SANTA ROSA, CALIF.
541.5
428.0
79.5
376.4
1358.8
243.1
342.0
128.8
4617.9
968.5
85.3
2401.2
79.9
141.6
1009.1
, 914.1
137.8
118.2
170.8
228.5
296.4
121.1
518.3
181.4
,84.1
882.7
272.1
800.6
219.7
186.7
250.1
557.6
71.0
864.0
1143.1
1357.9
3109.5
1064.7
264.3
204.9
457.9
318.5
70.6
199.1
1186.9
203.4
313.4
106.7
4342.9
663.5
81.4
2405.4
76.8
139.1
821.9
821.1
107.0
118.7
141.8
169.1
275.4
84.7
436.0
158.8
65.5
73.6
230.1
625.5
190.8
147.4
198.4
447.8
64.6
716.2
809.8
1033.0
2648.8
642.3
169.0
147.4
                83,
               109.
                 8,
               177,
               171.9
                39.7
                28.6
                22.1
               475.0
               305.0
                 3.9
                -4.2
                 2.9
                 2.5
               187.6

                93.0
                30.8
                -0.5
                29.0
                59.4
                21,
                36.
                82.
                22,
                18.6

               150.1
                42.0
               175.1
                28.
                39.
.9
.3
                51.7
               109.8
                 6.4
               147.8
               333.3

               324.9
               460.7
               422.4
                95.3
                57.5
 1.8
 3.4
 1.3
 8.9
 1.4

 2.0
 0.9
 2.1
 1.1
 4.6

 0.5
-0.0
 0.4
 0.2
 2.3

 1.1
 2.9
-0.0
 2.0
 3.5

 0.8
 4.3
 1.9
 1.4
 2.8

 2.0
 1.8
 2.8
 1.5
 2.7

 2.6
 2.5
 1.0
 2.1
 4.1

 3.1
 1.7
 6.6
 5.6
 3.9
                                              52

-------
                                         POP 70
POP 60    CHG 60-70  ANN PCT CHG
SAVANNAH, GA.
SCRANTON, PA.
SEATTLE-EVERETT, WASH.
SHERMAN-DENISON, TEX.
SHREVEPORT, LA.

SIOUX FALLS, S.D.
SIOUX CITY, IOWA
SOUTH BEND, IND.
SPOKANE, WASH.
SPRINGFIELD-CHICOPEE-HOLYOKE, MASS.

SPRINGFIELD, ILL.
SPRINGFIELD, OHIO
SPRINGFIELD, MO.
ST. JOSEPH, MO.
ST.LOUIS, MO-ILL.

STANFORD, CONN.
STEUBENVILLE-WEIRTON, OHIO-W. VA.
STOCKTON, CALIF.
SYRACUSE, N.Y.
TACOMA, WASH.

TALLAHASSEE, FLA.
TfiMPA-ST. PETERSBURG, FLA.
TERRE HAUTE, IND.
TEXARKANA, TEX.-ARK.
TOLEDO, OHIO-MICH.

TOPEKA, KAN.
TRENTON, N.J.
TUCSON, ARIZ.
TULSA, OKLA.TUSCALOOSA, ALA.
TUSCALOOSA, ALA.

TYLER, TEX.
UTICA-ROME, N.Y.
VALEJO-NAPA, CALIF.
VINELAND-MILLVILLE-BRIDGETON, N.J.
WACO, TEX.

WASHINGTON, D.C.-MD.-VA.
WATERBURY, CONN.
WATERLOO, IOWA
WEST PALM BEACH, FLA.
WHEELING, W. VA.-OHIO
187.8
234.1
1421.9
83.2
293.9
95.2
116.2
280.0
287.5
529.9
161.3
157.1
152.9
86.9
2363.0
206.4
165.6
290.2
635.9
411.0
103.0
1012.6
175.1
101.2
692.6
155.3
304.0
351.7
475.9
116.0
97.1
340.5
249.1
121.4
147.6
2861.1
209.0
132.9
348.8
182.7
188.3
234.5
1107.2
73.0
281.5
86.6
120.0
271.1
278.3
494.0
146.5
131.4
126.3
90.6
2104.7
178.4
167.8
250.0
563.8
321.6
74.2
772.5
172.1
91.7
630.6
141.3
266.4
265.7
419.0
109.0
86.4
330.8
200.5
106.9
150.1
2076.6
185.5
122.5
228.1
190.3
               -0.5
               -0.4
              314.
               10.
.7
.2
               12.4

                8.6
               -3.8
                8.9
                9.2
               35.9

               14.8
               25,
               26,
               -3,
              258.3

               28.0
               -2.2
               40.2
               72.1
               89.4

               28.8
              240.1
                3.0
                9.5
               62.0

               14.0
               37.6
               86.0
               56.0
                7.0

               10.7
                9.7
               48.6
               14.5
               -2.5
              784,
               23.
               10,
              120,
               -7.6
-0.0
-0.0
 2.8
 1.4
 0.4

 1.0
-0.3
 0.3
 0.3
 0.7

 1.0
 2.0
 2.1
-9.4
 1.2

 1.6
-0.1
 1.6
 1.3
 2.8

 3.9
 3.1
 0.2
 1.0
 1.0

 1,0
 1,4
 3.2
 1.4
 0.6

 1.2
 0.3
 2.4
 1.4
-0.2

 3.8
 1.3
 0,8
 5.3
-0.4
                                              53

-------
                                         POP 70
            POP 60    CHG 60-70   ANN PCT CHG
WICHITA FALLS, TEX.
WICHITA, KAN.
WILKES-BARRE-HAZELTON, PA.
WILMINGTON, DEL.-N.J.-HD.
WILMINGTON, N.C.

WORCESTER, MASS.
YORK, PA.
YOUNGSTOWN-WARREN, OHIO
127.6
389.4
342.3
499.5
107.2

344.3
329.5
536.0
129.6
381.6
347.0
414.6
 92.0

328.9
290.2
509.0
-2.0
 7.3
-4.7
84.9
15.2

15.4
39.3
27.0
-0.2
 0.2
-0.1
 2.0
 1.7

 0.5
 1.4
 0.5
                                              54

-------
35

30
•K
W
B
8 20
0
fu
o
H15
ft]
0
a 10

5


__
LARGEST TOWN: 25,001 - 49,999
-

-



-


2
















1



























1 1










RANGE:
3.3%/ .27.
MEDIAN:
1.7%
TOTAL NUMBER
OF COUNTIES
8
    LARGEST TOWN: 10,001 - 25,000
ZJ
H
£3 1C
8 15
o
H ^
ftl
O
C6
£ 5.


.



















LARGEST
20
•K
s
i 15
8
fe 10
o

8 5
u
«
PH



-

-

-


^






1



.-r
\ v



V;*
'°




2






1 1























33 3
















RANGE:
5.07./ -1.0%

MEDIAN:
1.1%

1 1
TOTAL NUMBER
OF COUNTIES
20
TOWN'<10,000 5 5
4





1



2

































3 RANGE:



1









1.9%/ -1.6%
MEDIAN:
.3Z
TOTAL NUMBER
OF COUNTIES
22
fl^^O-^^^^ ^>u=
'v>>r>.JV\ ^OO^'^o^O
S' '^ '2/ ^ V v' ' X x ' \,
\ \ \ S '0 t ^ ^ ^ ^
r r r- <0. ^O'^-O
      AVERAGE ANNUAL PERCENT CHANGE FROM 1960 TO 1970  (LINEAR GROWTH)
 Number above bar indicates actual number of  counties in category
                           FIGURE 1
                        BOSTON REGION
  NON-SMSA COUNTIES,  1960-1970, POPULATION GROWTH
PERCENT OF COUNTIES BY SIZE OF PRINCIPAL CITY OR TOWN
                         55

-------
*    LARGEST TOWN:  25,001 - 49,999
rf,                 '       '
B 30
§20
0
1 10
0
Id
fu
40
•K
B 30
8
. on
o
o 10
CM
60
RCENT OF COUNTIES*
J W 4S Ln
D O O O

10


3
_


LARGEST TOWN: 10,001

2
"
LARGEST TOWN :MO, 000
-
2
-

V ^ ^ ^ '
'V 'V ^

2


- 25
3



3



o
\
'e




,000
5



8




i
3 RANGE:
&.&/,/ -.37,
MEDIAN:
1.4%
1 1— i— - 	 TOTAL NirMBF.fl
OF COUNTIES
11

RANGE:
7.2%/ -.3%
2 .8%
TOTAL NUMBER
OF COUNTIES
15

RANCH:
2.8%/ -.4%
MEDIAN :
.6%
1 x TOTAL NUMBER
OF C'OUNTIKS
15
x '0 'if -0 'if '0
'•* V v v ^ \
^ '
-------
   LARGEST TOWN: 25,001 - 49,999
ICENT OF COUNTIES* PERCENT OF COUNTIES
h-> M N> |_i M f1
LnOLnO LnOUiC
W
PERCENT OF COUNTIES*
I— ' t-^ tO hO
Ui O W O Ui
-
LARGEST TOWN:
-
_2

2

_ LARGEST
7

\
4

3

TOWN
14




1


RANGE:
11 1
.9%,
TOTAL NUMBER
OF COUNTIES
10
10,001 - 25,000
8
7

30

6

000
20


23


4 4

19


13

RANGE:
4 MEDIAN:
3 .05%
, TOTAL NUMBER
44
RANGE:
6.0%/ -4.0?.
MEDIAN:
-.1%
5 i TOTAL NUMBER
2 | — -— . Of COUNTIES
'v 'v 'v ^ ° v ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

                                                    \
               ^   1   -^
      AVERAGE ANNUAL PERCENT CHANGE FROM 1960 TO 1970 (LINEAR GROWTH)
Number above bar indicates actual number of counties  in category
                            FIGURE  3
                     PHILADELPHIA REGION
       NON-SMSA COUNTIES, 1960-1970, POPULATION  GROWTH
    PERCENT  OF  COUNTIES BY SIZE OF PRINCIPAL CITY OR  TOWN
                   57

-------

-o 10
#
crt
W
1 15
o
g 10
g
u c
w




-

4

-






3
2





2


























9





3 3



2
















RANGE:
17.1%/ -1.4%
MEDIAN:
1.2%
TOTAL NUMBER
OF COUNTIES
50
20
15
10
W
3
ta
      LARGEST TOWN:    10,001 -  25,000

                           30
                    26
                13
                            25
                                19
                                        10
                                                 23   RANGE:
                                                     MEDIAN:
                                                     TOTAL NUMBER
                                                     OF COUNTIES
                                                         167
PERCENT OF COUNTIES*
f-* t-1 t^ fv-
loi O Ul O U1
LARGEST TOWN- < 10,000
88 89


18

40

70




48

RANGE:
7.5%A2.9%
MEDIAN:
30 0%
18 u TOTAL NUMBER
(—2— 445
                               "'o  \   \   \  \  \
            f~   f~   r-   O,
             >   >  ^  ^
              v   e-  *
      AVERAGE ANNUAL PERCENT CHANGE FROM 1960 TO 1970 (LINEAR GROWTHl
     *Number above bar indicates actual number of  counties in category
                            FIGURE 4
                        ATLANTA REGION
     NON-SMSA  COUNTIES, 1960-1970, POPULATION GROWTH
   PERCENT OF  COUNTIES BY  SIZE OF PRINCIPAL CITY OR TOWN
                     56

-------
    LARGEST TOWN: 25,001 - 49,999
g
o
o
Cd
W
   20
  10
                                                     RANGE:
                                                     4.4£/ -3.S

                                                     MEDIAN:
                                                       1.1%
                                                     TOTAL NUMBER
                                                  1   OF
                                                in
                                                          37
    LARGEST TOWN:  10,001 - 25,000
30
*
w
» 25
g
o
° 20
cw
o
H
I "
W
10
5




-


_



11

-
-
2
r^H





23
^••^•H














22






















11





RANGE:
3.9%/-l.U
MEDIAN:
.5%
3 3 TOTAL NUMBER
22 OF COUNTIES
1 80
25
•K
W
M
g 20
a
0 15
H
PERCEN
i— '
o
5



1-

~
i-
-
1
^





11






17






36



^
66






^

53





o


47




V



RANGE:
5.9%/ -2.5 %
MEDIAN:
1 7
20 lg -1 ''
1 in 12 TOTAL NUMBER
1 . OF COUNTIES
|— — 295
S S *>*>»>
                                    \    \    \
        AVERAGE ANNUAL PERCENT CHANGE FROM 1960 TO 1970 (LINEAR GROWTH)
        Number above bar Indicates actual number of counties in category
                   FIGURE  5 CWCAGI REGIM
       NON-SMSA COUNTIES, 1968-1571,  PONH.ATION GROWTH
     PERCENT Of COUNTIES IY SIZE Of  PfflNCIPAL CITY OR TOWN
                       59

-------
PERCENT OF COUNTIES*
H-* M l-° K>
Ui O Ln O !_n
LARGEST TOWN
- 1


: 25.001 - 49,999
333



1


4

RANGE:
5.9%/ -2.5%
, MEDIAN :
1 ...I™. TOTAL WTIMRKR
1 OF COUNTIES
1 26
   20
   15
W
U
Pi
LARGEST TOWN:  10,001 - 25,000

                     17

                 14.

            11,
                               '9
                                                    16
RANGE:
19.4% / --2.2 %

MEDIAN:
   .4 %

TOTAL NUMBER
OF COUNTIES
    100
       LARGEST TOWN: < 10,000
* zU
en
Ed
H
5 15
CJ
Fu
0 10
w 5
PL,


—


-


24



28



52








45






44 RANGE:






39 4.CK/ -3.3 %






25



MEDIAN:
24 „, _ , ,.



^.i. • "?
10 TOTAL NUMBER,


>* ^ ^ ^ r; o -^ s s ^ *> >f
                                          -J-   O    *S-   O
                                   >   x    \   \    \    \
                                   ^  <   -?   f   «?   \
                                             o  \f   'o
         AVERAGE ANNUAL PERCENT CHANGE FROM 1960 TO 1970 (LINEAR GROWTH)
 *Number above bar indicates actual number of counties in category
                       FIGURE 6 DALLAS REGION
       NON-SMSA COUNTIES, 1960-1970, POPULATION  GROWTH
    PERCENT  OF COUNTIES BY SIZE  OF PRINCIPAL CITY  OR  TOWN
                             60

-------
    LARGEST TOWN:  25,001 - 49,999
* "
w
M
| 20
O
S 15
&
s
g 10
eu
5
25
DF COUNTIES
h-i fO
Ln O
e
8 10
w
PH
5

"~
-
-
1 1

LARGEST TOWN: 10,0
-
.
3
2




1

n -
10





4




25, OC
9








1

0
10







2




4





2



6





3
RANGE:
3.6%/ -1.5%
MEDIAN:
X 1
TOTAL NUMBER
OF COUNTIES
17

RANGE:
1.9Z/ -1.4%
MEDIAN:


TOTAL NUMBEf
OF COUNTIES
44
 25
 20
 15
 10
LARGEST TOWN:<10,000


         75   74
        35
    10
                     54
                         35
                             23
                                                   RANGE:

                                                   4.6%/ -3.1%


                                                   MEDIAN:
                                                   TOTAL NUMBER

                                                   OF COUNTIES

                                                      329
                                s    v    N    x    x    V
                                 •(P   vf  tf  r"   U>   \
       AVERAGE ANNUAL PERCENT CHANGE FROM 1960 TO 1970 (LINEAR GROWTH)
Number above bar indicates  actual number of counties in category

                  FIGURE 7 KANSAS CITY REGION

     NON-SMSA  COUNTIES,  1960-1970,  POPULATION GROWTH

 PERCENT OF OF COUNTIES BY  SIZE OF  PRINCIPAL  CITY OR  TOWN
                            61

-------
*
1— I
8 15
o
u,
ta
^ 5


LARGEST TOWN: 25,001 - 49,999


"
-


1








2





2












2














RANGE:
6.9%/ -.7%
1 1








MI;DIAN :
1.9 %
TOTAL NUMBER
OF COUNTIES
12
  25


  20


  15


  10
LARGEST TOWN: 10,001 - 25,000

               6

                    5
                                                             RANGE:
                                                             4.4%/ -1.3%

                                                             MEDIAN:
                                                                   TOTAL NUMBER
                                                                   OF COUNTIES
                                                                        27
     LARGEST TOWN:<10,000
3, 20
W
M
I15
[K
° 10
1
O
e 5


—
38
~ 33
















45









,(,(*










RANGE:
16. 0%/ -4.3%
26






MEDIAN:
17 -1.0%

10 g TOTAL NUMBER
	 [6 5 OF COUNTIES
1 1 	 1 1 237
^ %> 'V 'V ^. °\ >J" ^o "> ^o ^ ^o
^ '°j '•£ '2- "^ > V " ' , x v \
\ \ \ " '° ^ „ -n ^ ^ A
        AVERAGE ANNUAL PERCENT CHANGE FROM 1960 TO 1970 (LINEAR GROWTH)
*Number above bar indicates actual number of  counties in category
                    FIGURE 8 DENVER REGION
     NON-SMSA COUNTIES, 1960-1970,  POPULATION GROWTH
 PERCENT Of  OF COUNTIES  BY SIZE OF  PRINCIPAL CITY  OR TOWN

-------
70
60
*
B
i 50
o
0
g 40
1 30
w
20

10


~
_
LARGEST TOWN: 25,001 -
-
-
„

-

_


V)
« 30
g
o
0 20
fe
ERCSNT I
S
ft-
—
LARGEST TOWN: 10,001 - 25

—
1
1
*
S 30
s
o
0 20
o
w 10
w
*" LARGEST TOWN: < 10,000


—

_
2
1 111
r- /T rr ^ r
\ V V V s.





4
49,999











,000

3






6



o
v














1








3


V





111

























RANGE:
4.7%/ 1.1%
MEDIAN:
3.1%
TOTAL NUMBER
OF COUNTIES
6

5 RANGE :



222











5.0%/ -0.5%

, MEDIAN:


TOTAL NUMBER
OF COUNTIES
19

10 RANGE:



5
3



3

2







8.2X/ -2.1%

MEDIAN:
1.8%
TOTAL NUMBER
OF COUNTIES
37
r* f* v3 ^ v>>
•|5 V '0 > 'o
                                           \     \     \     \     \
                                           <    X
       AVERAGE ANNUAL PERCENT CHANGE FROM 1960 TO 1970 (LINEAR GROWTH)
Number above bar indicates actual number of counties in category



                FIGURE 9 SAN  FRANCISCO  REGION

      NON-SMSA COUNTIES, 1960-1970,  POPULATION GROWTH

   PERCENT OF  COUNTIES  BY SIZE OF PRINCIPAL CITY OR TOWN


                              63

-------
   LARGEST TOWN: 25,001 - 49,999
COUNTIES*
•> M N
3 Oi C
PERCENT OF
K
Ui C
30
25
*
w
u
£ 20
8
to 15
o
g
8 10
«
W
O<

'20
*
w

g 15
g
n. 10
o
g
8 5
Id
P4

-
~
LARGEST TOWN: 10,
•~


1

LARGEST TOWN:<10,
12

6
_, .. ij





001 -





000
13







1

25.00C
k






9





1

5






12











2





6




1




2







3






3









1

RANGE:
3.6%/ -.2%
11 1
MEDIAN:
L.7%
TOTAL NUMBER
OF COUNTRIES
10



RANGE:
3.7%/ -1.3%
MEDIAN:
.4%
1 1
TOTAL NUMBER
OF COUNTRIES
19


RANGE:
«.2%/ -3.5%
MEDIAN:

3 . _3 	 TfYTAT. N1TMRF.R
OF COUNTIES

            ^    ^
      AVERAGE ANNUAL PERCENT CHANGE FROM 1960 TO 1970  (LINEAR GROWTH)

*Nuniber above bar indicates actual number of  counties in category
                  FIGURE 10  SEATTLE  REGION
   NON-SMSA COUNTIES, 1960-1970, POPULATION GROWTH
 PERCENT OF COUNTIES BY SIZE OF PRINCIPAL CITY OR  TOWN
                         64

-------
       Largest town:  25.OO1-49.999
15
y  20
t-
z
D
o
o
u.
O

K
Z
UJ
O
(t
UJ
0.
10
                            24
                              25
                      12
                  11
                                      27
                                                  25
                                          14
17 1%/ -3 8%



  Median

   1.2%


 Total Number


  of Counties

    187
(I)
UJ 2O-

l-
Z
D
0 15-
O
Ul
Q.
£20.
I-


§15
U
u.
0
       Largest town 1O.OO1-25.OOO


                            1O4
                     SO
                    43
                17
        4   4
                              89
                                     55
                                             28
                                                      54
                                                 16
I-
z
UJ
UJ
0.
  1O- -
 Range

     -29%
                                                            Median-

                                                              O b


                                                           Total Number

                                                            of Counties

                                                               535
.- Largest tnwrv
-
94

142

257

< 1O.OOO
315 313


275

192

Range.
16 O%/ -4 3<
Median
-02
Total Numt
11O of Countie
7T , i°77
57 68
               >7  '•»   '.  O,   V.
                                           V>
                                           o
                                                     \
              average annual percent from 196O to 197O (linear growth)
         *number above bar indicates actual number of counties in category


                              FIGURE 11

        NON-SMSA  COUNTIES, 1960-1970, POPULATION  GROWTH

     PERCENT OF COUNTIES  BY  NATIONAL SUMMARY  OF PRINCIPAL

                            CITY  OR TOWN
                                 65

-------
OUNTIES
8
U 15
2
<
I)
CL
n
J-METR(
O
O
Z
0 5
I-
ILl
U
&:
K
o




"

-








100







146






279






369







4O5








403










306










199




NON - SMSA COUNTIES, 196O-197O, POPULATION CHANGE
RANGE-
194% -43%
MEDIAN
O%
TOTAL NUMBER OF COUNTIES
2644
145 147
99
47

-3-2-1     01     2345


      AVERAGE ANNUAL PERCENT POPULATION CHANGE 196O-7O
w
UJ
< 25
J
O
1-
Ifl
h 20
in
z

H
_J
0
a.
g 16
H
s
Q
Q
< 1°
h
(fl
u.
Q

h
Z
o 5
a

n


-











-




-







~

3
r








53
















31


24






13





— ^

























1

























SMSA COUNTIES, 196O-1970, POPULATION CHANGE


RANGE
11 5% / -O 9%
38


















MEDIAN
1 4%

2_ TOTAL NUMBER OF SMSA'S
|-1^'3













^.-TVJ





15


12

9
6

1111 2 7
I I I I II I 	 1 I 	 1
           -1      O     1     2     3     4      5     6     7     8     9     10     11    12

                        AVERAGE ANNUAL PERCENT POPULATION CHANGE 196O-7O
                  "NUMBER ABOVE BAR INDICATES ACTUAL NUMBER OF COUNTIES IN CATEGOR^

                                         FIGURE 12

     COMPARISON OF  NON-SMSA'S AND SMSA'S  RATE OF POPULATION CHANGE,  1960-1970
                                           66
                                                    U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE  1972 — 5) !>_] 50 (123)

-------