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)
------- |