-------
-------
FINAL
REPORT OF THE KEGIW V LAND USE STUDY 6MBP
LAND DISPOSAL OF
WASTEWATER: A LAND USE CASE STUDY
by
Richard E. Foglesong
Judson W. Starr
November 3, 1972
U.S. Environmental Protection A&C
Eeglon 5, Library (5PL-16)
230 S. Dearborn Street, Room 1670
Chicago, IL 60604
-------
-------
INTRODUCTION
t *
Governmental authority Cor land use and land use control has
traditionally rested with the States and localities. For this reason,
land use responsibility at the Federal level exists largely in a
"no-man* s land" of responsibility and interest* Few persons within
the Federal Government are fully cognizant of "who has what" federal
authority with respect to land use; even the Goy ernrrien t
Manual is ambivalent on the question of where, or whether, federal
land use authority exists -- with the result that questions of proper
land use and the protection of the land resource tend to be ignored
within the Federal establishment. Federal land use authority, where
existent in direct or indirect form, is dispersed among a variety of
governmental entities: the Departments of Agriculture, Army;and
Housing and Urban Development and the Environmental" Protection Agency,
) ~ '
to name but a few» As result of this dispersion, federal program
administrators — in EPA as well as other agencies -- are prone to
• . '
ignore the land impact of their programs relative to those other
!
considerations for v1- " Federal authority is salient and well-defined.
That the Federci Government has been relatively indifferent to
problems of land use, for whatever reasons, is manifest in the statutory
authority and administrative structures and practices of the
1 • i
Environmental Protection Agency. When EP/ was administratively
- - f
created and charged with Federal-level responsibility for the protection
and enhancement of the environment, nearly all of the federal program
re<- „„•:?.. .ity and related statutory authorities with respec. o the
-------
-------
ii
conservation and regulation of the physical environment was transferred
to and consolidated in EPA. Accordingly, EPA delineated administrative
»
niches for air and water programs and for "categorical" functions
such as solid waste, radiation and pesticides control. The coverage
of these EPA programs are roughly indicative of the inclusiveness «•-
and, hence, the exclusiveness — of Federal statutory authority
with respect to environmental protection. Hopefully the reader
will anticipate the next comment: that land use responsibility is
significant by its absence among EPA's responsibilities.
I Although EPA is regarded as the federal agency whose mission it
is to protect and enhance the environment, in truth that mission is
„ delimited administratively and by statutue to two elements of t-.h
-------
-------
iii
This report wos prepared as part of a national land use study
cov-ii ssionc-1 by CPA nnd carried out under the aegis of the Agency's
National Youth Advisory Board. The initiation of this nationwide effort
resulted from the concurrent interest of EPA Administrator William
Ruckelshaus and the EPA Youth Advisory Board in the relationship
between land use policies and practices and the operating responsibilities
of EPA. In a memorandum dated April 5, 1972, Administrator Ruckelshaus
stated in part:
It is apparent to me that as an agency we need a better
picture of the relationship between land use policies,
practices and mechanisms and environmental protection,
particularly from the point of view of EPA's operating
responsibilities • o . The National Youth Advisory
Board had earlier advised me of its interest in doing
a national land use survey with special application to
thp policies and programs of EPA. Thi q r.ninrirles w'i t-Vi
iny own desire that such a study be undertaken, and I
have approved the carrying on of this study by the
Youth Advisory Board.
Administrator Ruckelshaus further stated in this memorandum that study
teams comprised of temporary personnel should be formed at EPA's
Washington headquarters and in each of the Agency's ten regional
offices for the purpose of carrying out this land use study.
This report is essentially a case study. As such, it focuses
upon the impact upon the land resource of the land disposal method
of wastewater treatment. For the benefit of the lay reader, whom
we hope this report will reach, the land disposal method of wastewater
treatment (also referred to as the "land treatment" or "living filter"
.wastetreatment method) is distinguished from conventional forms
-------
iv
of wastewatcr treatment in that it involves the irrigation of wastcwatcr
onto crop land, where the plants and soils arc relied upon to assimilate
the various wastevatcr constituents which would otherwise be potentially
harmful if alloxved to pass into a watercourse. It should be noted, however,
that the land disposal systems which will be discussed herein employ
conventional treatment methods prior to the disposal of wastewater
on land. A further similarity of conventional treatment methods and
land disposal systems is that both involve ultimate discharge into
watercourses. After the irrigated wastewater in a land disposal system
filters through the soil, it is collected beneath the ground and carried
to watercourses for ultimate discharge.
Organizationally, this report divides into two basic parts. First,
it examines some of the implications of the land disposal system being
constructed in Muskegon County, Michigan, an EPA-funded project which is
destined to become the largest scale application of the land disposal
concept in this nation's history. Against this backdrop, the second
part of the report examines the land use implications of the Army
Corps of Engineers' Chicago-South End Lake Michigan .(C-SELM) Wastewater
Management Study, which has proposed plan alternatives for a massive
land disposal system to serve the Chicago-Gary consolidated metropolitan
area. This examination of the G-SELM Study separates into two sub-parts:
the first focuses on the conduct of the C-SELM Study itself, explaining how
it came about and how it is being carried out; the second sub-part assesses
the foreseeable impact of the planning study from the perspective of the
various governmental jurisdictions which would le affected if any of
the land disposal alternatives proposed in the t-SELM Study were
effectuated. Following our examinatici of the C-SELM Study, we present
-------
-------
our concluding assessments of the C-SELM Study, after which we have
articulated a list of specific recommendations based upon preceding
analysis and examination.
This case study was written with three basic objectives. The first
two of these objectives are intrinsic to the focus on the land disposal
method of wastewater treatment. First, we wanted to determine the
effect which wastewater management might have upon the land resource
if large scale land disposal systems become widely adopted as a means
of providing tertiary wastewater treatment to comply with present or
anticipated water quality standards. Secondly, we wanted to
determine the nature and amount of consideration being given to land
use and land use planning in the planning and development of land
disposal systems. Our third objective was not specific to our focus
>
upon the land disposal method of wastewater treatment; in fact, it
presumably could have been accomplished in any one of a variety of
case studies. This third objective was to conduct a case study which
would serve as a "window" through which we could better understand
and make recommendations with respect to land use problems which may
arise from governmental action to protect or enhance some aspect of the
natural environment.
Before deciding to focus this study on the land disposal method
of wastewater treatment, several other topics were considered from the
standpoint of the insights which they might offer. In the end, the
land disposal topic was chosen because of the authors' recognition
that (1) the potential land impact of a land disposal system has
received a dearth of analysis relative to the attention given to the
-------
vi
potential impact of such a system upon the water resource and (2) that
that this in.balancc must bo corrected. The need to correct this imbalance
of attention i;-. made more acute by the intensified interest in planning
•
and developing land disposal systems which has resulted from the Muskegon
County Project and related developments. The reason for our interest
in the Muskegon Project should therefore be fairly obvious. Our decision
to specifically examine the C-SELM Study is explained, in part, by
the expediency of examining a planning project within the proximity
of the Chicago office where this report was written. Notwithstanding
_ the expediency of examining the C-SELM Study, we were interested in this
-i particular Corps of Engineers' project for the simple reason that it
involves plan alternatives for a land disposal system that would be
! larger than the Muskegon County system by several orders of magnitude.
»
Accordingly, we have not assumed that the C-SELM Study is exemplary or
J entirely representative of land disposal planning in general or that
i the prospects for or desirability of constructing a land disposal
system in the C-SELM area are indicative of the prospects for or
| desirability of a large scale land disposal system elsewhere. There is
an admitted risk involved in generalizing our conclusions with respect
"|
J to the C-SELM Study to present or future land disposal projects else-
: " where. The authors have been mindful of this risk and have articulated
their conclusions and recommendations accordingly.
1 The authors appreciate the assistance of the numerous individuals
and organizations which provided information or other assistance which
-i was useful in assembling this report. Five individuals in the EPA
; Chicago Regional Office were especially helpful at one stage or another
*•
in the preparation of this report and deserve a special thanks:
-------
vii
llarlan Ilirt; Steve Polonscik, Carl Wilson and Dwight Chaiken; and
Louvcnia Hollins. None of these persons should necessarily be
associated with the conclusions of the authors. We should also
express our appreciation to the Chicago District Office of the Army
Corps of Engineers, which formally responded to our inquiries once
they were submitted in writing. In addition, we are indebted to the
highly factual history of the Muskegon Project which was written
at the Center for Urban Studies of the University of Chicago under
contract with the (Federal) Water Resources Commission; our explanation
of the inception and implementation of the Muskegon Project drew
heavily upon the odering of events contained in the CUS report.
"Any factual errors in this report are immediately attributable to
t-V>p authors. Moreover, the conclusions and recommendations contained
herein are those of the authors and should not be construed as
the judgements of EPA. The authors were temporarily employed by
EPA for the express purpose of writing a land use study for the Region
V Youth Advisory Board and for the national land use study being
carried out under the auspices of the Agency's National Youth Advisory
Board. During their summer employment with the Agency, the authors
were given independent discretion in the preparation of this report.
Nevertheless, while the authors accept full responsibility for this
report, they are hopeful that this Agency and other individuals and
organizations will support the recommendations contained herein and
take affirmative action to implement the same.
Richard E. Foglesong
Judson W. Starr
-------
-------
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION _ x
TABLE OF CONTENTS viii
PART I - MUSKEGON COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT 1
A. County Overview 1
B. Political Problems • 4
C. Inception of the Muskegon Wastewater 10
Management Project
D. Developmental Aspects of the Muskegon Project 20
1. Effect on land use 20
2. Costs 23
4. Agricultural considerations 25
5. EPA involvement 26
E. Concluding Assessments of the Muskegon Project 27
PART II - RESPONSE TO THE MUSKEGON PROJECT 31
A. Areas Identified 31
B. The Chicago-South End Lake Michigan Experience 32
1. Basic assumptions 32
2. Findings 32
3. Standards 33
4. Memorandum of understanding 34
5. Phase I and II 35
6. Land use implications of alternative methods 42
C. EPA's Interface with the Corps of Engineers 59
1. Nature of the interface 59
2.. EPA's view of the C-SELM Study 59
-------
-------
ix
Page
PART in - THE C-SI:LM STUDY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF 65
STATE A:;D LOCAL JURISDICTIONS
A. States 65
1. Knowledge of C-SELM Study 65
2. Foreseeable land use impact of 67
a land disposal system
3. Status of land use policy and planning 70
for this jurisdiction
4. Opportunity to affect implementation 82
of a C-SELM Plan
5. Opportunity for citizen input 87
B. Counties 92
1. Knowledge of C-SELM Study 92
2. Foreseeable land use impact of ' 96
a land disposal system
3. Status of land use policy and planning 99
for this jurisdiction
4. Opportunity to affect implementation of 105
of a C-SELM Plan
C. Concluding Assessments of the C-SELM Study 107
RECOMMENDATIONS 132
NOTES 134
-------
PART I - MUSKEGON COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT
A. County Overview
Musi;.';0'.! Comity is loc.itt-d in the west-central portion of Michigan's
lower punin.su] a along the eastern shore of Lake Michigan. (See map on
next page.) The County area is characterized generally by both a. flat
glacial lake plain and a gently undulating outwash plain. Alluvial
lowlands are the lowest land surfaces in the County; in these lowlands
are located major drainages of the County, the Muskegon and White
Rivers and Black Creek. The lower portion of the alluvial lowlands
contain broad lakes, including Muskegon, Mona and White Lake, formed
by the damming of their outlets into Lake Michigan by shoreline dunes.
These shoreline dunes form a nearly contiguous ridge along the Lake
Michigan shoreline. Sand dunes also exist in the interior of%the
County. These are less pronounced than those along the shoreline and
form distinctive rises on the relatively level plains of the County.
Muskegon County covers an area of 510 square miles with a total
water surface area of 11,600 acres. There are sixteen townships, seven
cities, and four villages within the County. The metropolitan complex
of the City of Muskegon and Muskegon Heights, which houses 80 percent
of the County population, serves as the social and economic center of
the County. This metropolitan complex focuses on two dunes-impounded
lakes, Muskegon and Mona. A smaller, but important, urban complex lies \
to the north of the Muskegon-Muskegon Heights metropolitan complex; |
this is the area formed by the twin cities of Whitehall and Montague,
both of which focus upon a third dunes-impounded lake, White Lake. '
i
This total urban area is the largest located on the eastern shore of |
-------
I I
— -T- L — _ | |
on Jv I Mortcolm j Gratlot ' • _ j
V i MUSKEGON \ J"? ! t ! T ~1
GRAND HAVBC ' x
Ottawa
HOLLANCl
p L
ra
K«nt
nGRAND
^RAPIDS
. — . — 1
j }.
Ionia ' . Clinton |SMawoas«
i :
1 . L ,
' C«nesee J Lop«" / b / . ntrim , Ott«go !
r._j__^_J , 1 . L__
Maion ' Lake , Oscsolo | Clore Glodwln | Ar
| /Y^/vS-'/^Y-''')'-' f*r\ l~l
'''v<^il£->v..l^//» V=U. i u
f
Micoito I Itaballo i Midland (Coy
L I ~
GENERAL LOCATION MAP OF MUSKEGON COUNTY
Reproduced from George Davis and Allison
Dunham, "Analysis of the Muskegon County,
Michigan Wasteater Management Project,"
Center for Urban Studies, University of
-------
POLITICAL UNITS
0 C £ A N A CO.
s _
K E WA Y G 0 CO.
^LAKETON TWR
North
.' TcM-UiKEGON EGELSTON I MOORLAND
,-^Y \JTWP. TWP. TWP.
M-46
SULLIVAN
TWR
t.^-V 1-96
iji.c^.-^ ij v i .
I \ FRUITPORTl
o
• Ravenna
RAVENNA TWR
CASNOVIA
TWP.
Casnovia
KENT CO.
OTTAWA CO.
LEGEND:
I
1 Cities
I
i Townships
O Village*
Reproduced from George Davis and Allison Dunham,
Analysis of the Muskegon County, Michigan
Wastewater Management Project," Center for Urban
Studies, University of Chicago, 1971'.
-------
-------
Lake Michigan. It is also the terminus of an urbanized corridor
extending from Detroit, through Lansing and Grand Rapids.
The County, the 208th largest Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Area (SMSA) in the United States, had a 1960 population of 149,716.
Preliminary tabulations of the 1970 Census indicate a growth of 6,361,
or 4.2 percent, to 156,077. However, while moderate growth was
experienced throughout most of the County, the central cities of
Muskegon and Muskegon Heights experienced a net population decrease
of 4.5 percent and 12.8 percent respectively. Rural farm population
constitutes only two percent of the total County population.
The primary natural resource within the County appears to be its
water access. Lake Michigan, which constitutes 20 miles of the western
boundary of the County, provides the area with much of its water supply.
In addition, the dune-impounded lakes, Muskegon, Mona and White, are
focal points for the urban areas of the County. Other natural resources
include sand and gravel, salts and some gas and oil. These resources
are utilized locally. Agricultural productivity in Muskegon County is
considerably lower than that of comparable urban counties in Michigan
(such as Kent County to the east), due primarily to poor soils.
Muskegon County became a prosperous center of urban activity
commencing around 1840. Prior to that time, during the nineteenth
century, the economy of the area was based almost entirely upon the
exploitation of the pine forests that blanketed the area. This
lumbering was responsible for attracting the first wave of white settlers
to the region. But by the turn of the century, the timber resources had
-------
been badly depleted by clear-cut logging practices. Where 37 sawmills
bad been active in 1888, only three remained in operation by 1896.
The decline o£ the lui.iber era brought on a period of depression which
2
lasted two decades.
In response to the demise of the lumbering industry and the resul-
tant economic decline, the region organized to attract new industry.
By 1910, they were successful in attracting over forty new industries
to the area. Although a great diversity of industries were attracted
during this period, they consisted primarily of heavy industrial
- activities requiring a minimum level of skilled labor and offering
3
"I low-to-moderate levels of income. The lumbering era, through its
I
te
location of sawmills along the Muskegon and White Lakes, had set the
pattern for industrial uses to be located along these shorelines.
ai
Thus, when new industry arrived in the area, it too located along
«• these shorelines nearby to the older industries which had supplied
1 heavy materials to the lumber mills. The lakes were used by industry
for easy transportation and as a receptacle for their wastes.
~\
j Two other resources wasted in the County during this period are
worthy of note. The first, the land, was left iarren behind the
* • lumberjacks; it had neither the topsoil nor the proper drainage to
M
j support a viable agricultural segment of the economy. The second
J
resource, gas and oil, was discovered in 1927, just in time to make
J
J
-------
the effects of the depression less traumatic. The development of
extractive operations for these resources enhanced a period of
industrial growth lasting until the 1950s. By 1940, however, the
oil and gas fields were no longer productive.
The impact of Muskegon County's urban growth and heavy industry
has taken a heavy toll on the area's physical environment. The
shorelines had always been its most striking feature. But decades
of industrial sprawl, pollution, and landfill had left the lakes
in a degraded condition. The mining of sand and unregulated growth
patterns had destroyed large areas of the shoreline dune. Air
pollution grew offensive near the cities, and the fringe areas became
.characterized by leapfrogging urban sprawl.
%
B. Political Problems
The confusing assortment of local governments within Muskegon
County has hampered the ability of those, governments to come to grips
with the cause and effect of environmental degradation in the County.
This situation has led to various proposals for altering governmental
arrangements within the County. Three specific proposals of this
sort have been raised: governmental consolidation; creation of a
special water and sewer authority; and the development of a larger
role for County Government in areawide planning. .
Consolidation has been a popular issue throughout the last fifty
years in Muskegon County, The urbanized area of the County consists
of two larger cities, Muskegon and Muskegon Heights; three smaller
cities, North Muskegon, Roosevelt Park, and Norton Shores; and
extensive development within the neighboring Muskegon townships
-------
without any one unit occupying a relatively dominant position. Among
other things, this situation has created a confusing patchwork of
utilities and public services that in some instances appeared to
hamper regional development.
In 1959, a citizens' committee attempted to bring about a public
referendum on the question of consolidating the various government
units surrounding the City of Muskegon. This particular effort was
eventually doomed by an October 1958 ruling from the Michigan State
Supreme Court that consolidation could not be accomplished by a vote
of a simple majority of the voters within the proposed new city;
rather, a majority would be required in each of the constituent
government units (Taliaferro vs. Genesee Supervisors), In response
to this ruling and to the increasing evidence that voters in the
townships were hostile to consolidation, the petition for a
referendum on consolidation was withdrawn.
On the heels of this failed effort to bring about consolidation,
new citizens' committees were established in 1959 in the County's
center cities of Muskegon and Muskegon Heights. To test voter
response to the issue of consolidation, these committees petitioned
for a. referendum on the concept of consolidation; a subsequent
election would be held to approve a city charter for any new
consolidated community. In 1961, the combined voters of Muskegon
and Muskegon Heights voted down the concept of consolidation. In the
City of Muskegon, which would have been the center of the proposed
consolidated community, the vote was heavily in favor of consolida-
tion while in Muskegon Heights the issue was defeated by a slender
-------
margin. Only 32 percent of the registered voters in both cities voted.
Post election analysis revealed that the very significant black popu-
lation of Muskegon Heights had voted against consolidation. The black
community apparently felt that it would lose its political effective-
ness in the context of the larger consolidated city. •
In 1962, a second referendum on the concept of consolidation was
held. This time the proposal was defeated by a larger margin than
previously, due in part to the even smaller number of voters who came
to the polls." This effectively ended the consolidation efforts in
Muskegon County.
With the failure of consolidation in Muskegon County, local
leaders who were interested in securing water and sewer facilities
for newly developing areas turned to a more specific approach. The
issue of water and sewer extensions and the sale of water to smaller
communities became the focal point of attempts to provide areawide
planning and operation of water resource systems. This concern had
become particularly intense due to the City of Muskegon's aggressive
annexation policy, which was adopted in an attempt to control the
establishment of separately incorporated villages surrounding the
City of Muskegon. In conjunction with that policy, the City of
Muskegon used the extension of water supply lines as a sanction:
unless an area annexed itself to the City of Muskegon, it would
have to pay a surcharge for the extension of water supplies from
the City of Muskegon which would be equivalent to those extra taxes
which would fall upon that area if it were annexed by the City of
Muskegon. The various problems associated with the areawide
-------
management of water resulted in two attempts to solve these
problems: the regional water study of the Muskegon Area Economic
Planning and Development Association (MAEPD); and the organiza-
tion of the Muskegon Area Water and Sewer Authority.
The membership of the MAEPDA felt that the provision of
water on an areawide basis in Muskegon County would serve as an
economic stimulus. Accordingly, the MAEPDA concluded on the
basis of a regional water study performed by Bauer Engineering
that the only feasible means of administering an areawide waste
water system was to establish an areawide organization which
would own and operate all waste treatment and water supply facil-
ities in the area. Realizing that the Cities of Muskegon and
Muskegon Heights would not relinquish their individual water and
sewer authority, which was their most important tool in control-
ling development in the area, the MAEPDA elected to develop a
totally independent water and sewer system. In February 1964,
it helped to establish the Muskegon Waste Water and Sewer Authority
for that purpose. The authority began its planning effort im-
mediately using the consultant firm that had prepared the earlier
MAEPDA study. When the Cities of Muskegon and Muskegon Heights
once again refused to entertain the prospect of joining an area-
wide water and sewer authority, the Muskegon Area Water and Sewer
Authority proceeded to adopt a plan calling for a completely in-
; dependent system. That plan was submitted to the Federal Water
/Quality} Administration in 1966, in an application for federal
construction grants. At the same time, the City of "Muskegon
submitted its own grant request i!or the extension
-------
of its sewor system. This resulted in the FWQA rejecting all grants
in the IIusluM-.on area until some type of regional planning was adopted
to resolve the duplication of systems in the area.
The damper which the FWQA's action placed upon the effort to bring
• about an areawide water and sewer authority served to usher in a more
salient role for County Government in areawide planning and the
financing and construction of water and sewer facilities. Recognizing
**
the vacuum of authority in those area, the County acceded to the
wishes of the Cities of Muskegon and Muskegon Heights and moved to
assume responsibility for areawide planning and the provision of water
"1 and sewerage services. In 1966, the County established a County
\
. Department of Public Works, which contributed to the dormancy of the
-i
Muskegon Area Water and Sewer Authority. With the advent of & County
Department of Public Works, it was possible for the County to provide
i
a financial guarantee for the townships when they constructed water
~1 distribution lines, and water could be supplied by the central cities,
thereby removing the need for the Water and Sewer Authority.
1
j Another milestone in the elevation of county wastewater management
-. responsibility was the County Board's appointment, in 1964, of a
County Planning Commission, climaxing a long-standing effort to
j establish a county planning function. In July 1967, when the A-95
grant review requirement of the Federal Office Management and Budget
J took effect, the County Planning Commission was redesignated as the
\ Muskegon County Metropolitan Planning Commission and certified as the
A-95 review agency or "metropolitan clearinghouse" for the Muskegon
I , SMSA. This federal action had a snowballing effect upon the preceding
-------
effort to enlarge the responsibility of County Government. For one,
the County Planning Commission was at once armed with County authority
as well as the significant federal authority mandated to A-95 agencies.
Secondly, the fact that Muskegon County is itself a one-county SMSA
"" • has meant that an existing unit of general-purpose local government,
i.e., the County, qualifies as the locus of federally-defined A-95
grant review authority. In contrast, the numerous multi-county
metropolitan areas, such as the five-county Chicago SMSA, have been
- impelled by the Office of Management and Budget to establish or
~" recognize an umbrella-like single-purpose unit of government to
I perform the A-95 grant review function; in such cases, the establish-
'ment or increased authority for a metropolitan-wide institution
~] '
_j has—in some ways—occasioned a devolution of the planning authority
— of existing units of local government.
i
~* The purpose of recounting the succession of attempts to bring
I about areawide water resource management and planning in Muskegon
County—events which led to an enlarged role for County Government—
J has been to demonstrate that the residents of the County were given
T the opportunity to consider the consolidation of government units
and the erection of a special-purpose authority and found those
| arrangements to be wanting. The only arrangement which Muskegon
County residents were willing to tolerate for the provision of
r
-1 areawide wastewater management and planning was the assignment of
| those responsibilities to County Government. The fact that the
residents of Muskegon County chose to rely upon an established
! unit of general-purpose local government, i.e., the County, for
-------
10
areawide wastewater management and planning facilitated the later
task of implementing a county-wide wastewater management plan.
C. Inception of the Muskegon Uastewater Management Project
In the su™.:;ier cf 19GS, Rod Dittir.cr, the Director of the Muskegon
County Planning Commission, went to the Center for Urban Studies of
the University of Chicago in search of consultant services to assist
the County in preparing a water resource policy study. Mr. Dittmer
was specifically interested in securing the services of Dr. Gilbert
White, a noted authority on Xv'ater resource management. Upon
learning that White had left the faculty of the University and was
no longer in the Chicago area, Dittmer turned to Dr. John R. Schaeffer,
at that time a Research Assistant at the Center for Urban Studies and
*
a frequent contributor to water resource planning efforts in the
Chicago area. In August of 1968, John R. Schaeffer and Associates
were formally contracted by the Muskegon-County Planning Commission
to prepare a water resource policy study for the County. This study,
which was completed in November 1968, provided the basis for action
in developing a county water resource management policy statement.
The new policy statement, which was adopted by the County Board in
February 1969, served notice that the County was prepared to halt
inadequate waste treatment practices. It extended the involvement
of the County to any water or sewerage facility involving more than
one governmental unit, which could affect the operations of another
governmental unit or which affected general county development in
any way. With this statement, the County asserted itself as the
mediator between the various factions quibbling over water resource
-------
11
0
problems, and as the prime policy maker within the County.
In order to meet the January 1, 1973 deadline for achieving the
treatment standards of the Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference,
Muskcgon County had to subnit an application to the Michigan Water
Resources Commission by May 15, 1969 in order to receive funding to
commence a wastewater management project during fiscal 1970. In
response to this timing, Schaeffer proposed a land disposal/spray
irrigation system for wastewater treatment as a county-wide answer
for the 1973 dealine for 80 percent phosphorus removal and secondary
treatment as prescribed by the Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference
and required by the State of Michigan. While the County Board of
.Supervisors deliberated upon this proposal, Schaeffer and the County
Planning Commission proceeded to plan for the spray irrigation
concept. On March 25, 1969, the County Board finally approved
Schaeffer's proposal and agreed to retain Bauer Engineering to
develop a more detailed proposal for submission to the Water Resources
Commission.
Whereas previous wastewater management efforts in Muskegon County
had applied minimal treatment to sewage before discharging wastewater
into natural water bodies, the Schaeffer proposal dictated the principle
that effluents should not be released to the natural water bodies at
all. Instead, secondary-treated wastewater should be placed upon the
J
land, using the natural properties of the soil" to assimilate waste
material from the secondary-treated effluent — after which this
treated effluent would be discharged into water courses. The novelty
of the Muskegon Plan does not derive from the land disposal concept
-------
12
itself, which is as old as man. Rather, the novelty of the Muskegon
Plan is that it represents the largest scale application of the land
disposal concept in this nation's history.
*
The response of the Michigan Water Resources Commission (WRC) to the
- - Muskegon Plan was triggered by the Commission's concurrent receipt of
a proposal from the City of Muskegon and its previous receipt of a
proposal for the White River-White Lake system which served White
*
River and Montague Townships. As a result, the WRC ruled that the
County, the City of Muskegon and the two townships had sixty days
to iron out their differences — after which the Commission itself
I would intercede to solve the differences. In addition, the Commission
directed Muskegon County to procure the approval of its plan from the
Michigan Department of Health, a normal requirement for all proposed
waste treatment facilities.
i
During the months following submission of the proposal, discussions
with the State Department of Health with regard to obtaining a permit
produced a number of scientific reservations regarding the Muskegon
J County proposal. The nature of these reservations indicated that six
-> months of work would be required to satisfy the Health Department's
"* 9
questions along. At the same time, the existence of a rival program
—t.
) in the same area necessitated a resolution of divergent opinions within
Muskegon County. In light of this situation, a three-part program was
J embarked upon. First, efforts-were made to develop local acceptance
~~] of the County program (generally at the expense of the City of
Muskegon's program). Second, efforts were made to maintain interest
j in the County program at the State level and to postpone any decision
-------
13
by the State until the County was able to assemble all of the pertinent
evidence supporting its position without question. Finally, efforts
were made to obtain a federal research and development grant to support
the feasibility study which the Bauer firm had under way.
To gain local acceptance of the spray irrigation proposal and to
neutralize any possible opposition, Schaeffer, Rod Dittmer and members
of the County Planning Commission re-vitalized their speech-making to
local organizations while saturating the local media with favorable
information on the spray irrigation concept. The proponents of the
Muskegon Plan concentrated much of their activity upon winning the
support of various local residents who were regarded as being
"influential." As part of that effort, a field trip was arranged
for various local decision-makers and certain State officials ,to
visit Pennsylvania State University's small-scale operating spray
irrigation project, which has been partially funded by EPA. Although
it is unusual for planning and engineering consultants to become
actively engaged in the political implementation of their planning
proposals, the key role which John Schaeffer played in urging adoption
of the Muskegon Plan and the generous support which he and the other
proponents received from Bauer Engineering were weighty contributions
to the eventual adoption of the spray irrigation proposal.
1
The other major effort was to convince the'City of Muskegon that
»
it was to their advantage to withdraw their proposal and to accept
the County scheme. The eventual decision by the City of Muskegon was
largely a result of two factors. For one, by the early spring of 1970,
-------
14
the Bauer Engineering firm, which had been contracted to perform the
engineering aspect of the project, had completed the feasibility
studies for the spray irrigation project. Their study held that
there was sufficient evidence to indicate the feasibility of a
county-wide spray irrigation system for wastewater treatment.
Second, the speech and education program conducted by Messrs.
cchaeffer, Dittmer and the members of the County Planning Commission
was successful in x^inning the support of numerous important people
throughout the County, including numerous persons in the City of
Muskegon.
An additional activity was the need to obtain, on short notice,
a research and development grant from the FWQA to fund the feasibility
studies necessary to meet the reservations of the Michigan Department
of Health. This grant was obtained after a series of talks between
the Muskegon interests and Schaeffer and the FWQA. This was facili-
tated to some degree by the growing interest in the project of
Congressman Guy Vander Jagt and subsequent discussion of the project
with Russell Train of the Council on Environmental Quality and David
/
Dominick, Commissioner of the Federal Water Quality Administration. I
Although feasibility studies had already begun, federal research and
'/
development funding did not become available until February 1970.
The culmination of the effort to convince local interests of the '
i
desirability of the spray irrigation proposal came on June 27, 1970,
!
when the Michigan Water Resources Commission approved the Muskegon
i
Plan. The factor which was most responsible for this success was the
!
feasibility studies which Bauer Engineering prepared with FWQA funds
to provide evidence that a spray irrigation system was viable. j
-------
-------
15
Three additional tasks were required to facilitate final imple-
mentation of the Muskcgon Project. First, a permit had to be obtained
from the Michigan Department of Public Health before construction
could begin. Second, optimum financing of the project from State
and federal sources had to be obtained. And finally, local financing
had to be arranged.
Even after the feasibility studies were completed in July of 1970,
the Michigan Department of Health continued to have reservations over
the reliability and safety of the proposed project. Nevertheless,
Muskegon County was apparently satisfied itself that spray irrigation
was safe and reliable; the County went ahead and advertised for
construction bids on the project, even though they had not obtained
the Health Department permit required before commencing construction.
The bids which were received ran two-to-four times the costs projected
by the Bauer firm, resulting in a rejection of all of these bids and
design modification and elaboration pursuant to a second round of
bids. Meanwhile, discussions with the Department of Health continued,
during which time political pressures were being brought to bear on
12
the governor through the efforts of Congressman Vander. Jagt. Final
approval by the Department of Health was officially received in
April 1971. Shortly thereafter, a second advertisement for construc-
tion bids was made which produced more reasonable bids and the contract
for construction was let.
In addition to the basic Federal Sewerage Works Grant and Associated
State Funds, Muskegon County sought to obtain an additional Federal
Research and Development Grant as a further source of federal funding. j
By its very nature, the Federal Research, Demonstration and Development j
-------
16
Grant program is intended to provide federal financial support to
develop and "de-bug" new technologies. However, Muskegon County's
interest in obtaining such a grant does not appear to have derived
from a concern on their part that the spray irrigation concept of
_ wastewater treatment needed further study. The actions of the
~~ proponents of a spray irrigation system for Muskegon County indicate
their outward confidence that spray irrigation was viable in. all
respects in Muskegon County. Accordingly, a Federal Research,
__ Development and Demonstration Grant appears to have been sought as
— an available source of federal funding which, by its nature, did not
~j require conclusive proof on the part of the grant recipient that the
.project being funded was without complications. The Great Lakes
—!
Regional Office of the FWQA, which was the predecessor to the ^Region V
_ (Chicago) Office of EPA, appears to have become involved in Muskegon
— County's process of application for a Federal Research, Development
~j and Demonstration Grant after the decision to award the grant had
been made. Through the assistance of Congressman Vander Jagt and
I his staff a number of meetings were held with high-level Federal
administrators for the purpose of stressing "the importance and
i 13
"- potential of this research." These efforts proved successful, and
1* by October 1970, the FWQA had found the funds to provide an initial
research and development grant of about one million dollars, which
j could later be increased to $2.3 million.
One of the final tasks necessary to implement the spray irrigation
proposal was to arrange to sell the revenue bonds which would provide
! the anticipated 16 million dollar contribution of the County to the
-------
17
total cost of the project. The only difficulty rested in avoiding any
typo of litigation which would prevent sale of the bonds. A group of
citizens from the White Lakes area of Muskegon County formed an
organization to oppose the project and indicated that they intended
--, -j to file suit to restrain its implementation. They intended, however,
~" to wait until a late moment before instituting suit. In order to
head off this suit, lest it interfere with the timely sale of County
revenue bonds, Muskegon County brought suit for a Declaratory
.. __ Judgement against the citizens group, and also made it a class
•" action in order to have the maximum effect of the judgement. The
~| effect of this suit for Declaratory Judgement, if successful, would
1
] be that the citizens group would have its day in court and could
I
not bring further suit with respect to the spray irrigation project.
To avoid this prospect, the citizens group filed a counterclaim under
"^ a then recent Michigan statute whereby individual citizens may bring
~] action to obtain relief against the State, where an alleged pollution
of the environment is likely to occur.
J The case was advanced for early trial and was heard by all three
--, of the circuit judges for Muskegon County. After hearing testimony
from various experts—including supportive EPA testimony—and convening
I an extraordinary court session at Pennsylvania State University to
observe the spray irrigation demonstration project, the Court unani-
J mously ruled that the design for Muskegon's spray irrigation project
j was basically sound and that construction should therefore not be
prevented. Specifically, the Court held that the design of the spray
! irrigation system was not likely to constitute a nuisance or a hazard
to public health to the residents of the area or County; that there
-------
18
way no likelihood of migration of groundwaters outside the perimeter
of the proposed site; and that private wells and natural water bodies
outside the site would not likely be polluted by the return of the
*
treated water.
~ The Court also unanimously held against the counterclaim of the
citizens' group by stating that the great weight of evidence established
that the proposed system was not likely to pollute the air, water or
ffm
__ other natural resources. The opinion established that there was no
— feasible and prudent alternative to establishing some kind of adequate
I
~* wastewater treatment in the County. The final decision was reached in
~] May 1971, opening the way for subsequent sale of the bonds in July 1971.
J
The significant aspect of the Muskegon County Court decision in
~1
_ favor of the County's spray irrigation plan is that it was limited to
— the safeness and workability of the design for the Muskegon Project.
The Court did not rule that the Muskegon Project would work; it held
J that the design for the project was workable — and reserved the right
to adjudicate whether the system is a health hazard or nuisance after
1
_J the system goes into operation. In this light, the Court decision is
~j hardly profound. It merely confirmed through* the Court what natural
i
processes and small scale spray irrigation projects have shown: that
[* the concept of spray irrigation is practicable and effective. Similarly,
the Court testimony of EPA officials in support of the workability of
•J the design of the Muskegon Plan does not indicate the Agency's position
I on the safeness and effectiveness of the Muskegon Project, which
necessarily must await the completion and operation of that project
j
and the performance of certain monitoring and surveillance. As
-------
19
J
J
J
J
J
j
compared with other methods of wastewater treatment, the safety and
effectiveness of a spray irrigation system is much more dependent upon
proper management. Accordingly, the management of the Muskegon Project
ir.ust be observed in practice—especially in light of the project's
unprecedented scale in the United States—before an informed judgement
can be made on whether a relatively large scale spray irrigation
system can be safe and effective.
-------
20
D. DEVELOPMENTAL ASPECTS OF THE "MUSKEGON PROJECT"
' "**
1. Effect on Land-Use
VJhen the 10,000 acre Muskegon Project is completed, 6,000 acres
of land will be utilized for the spray irrigation of wastewater.
This land was formerly the agricultural and residential property of
} ~~ three separate townships. Approximately twenty-five percent of the
J "—
land from one township and fifteen percent of the land from another
i •*
j __ was designated for the use of the project. Much of the land is
, -- agricultural while sor.e of the space is forest land or is covered
j
1 ~~ by scrub brush. The development of this land for irrigation of
secondary treated wastewater treatment will effect land use in many
J ways.
Roughly 200 families have been affected by the process of relo-
; *
— cation from the dicpccal site and of these residents some are still
~~ dealing with the county and/or the courts with regard to the imposed
wtt
relocation. This aspect of the project, which is eighty percent
I complete, has not impeded the implementation process, however;
construction work on the lagoons and other projects is proceeding
—' while condemnation actions continue. It has also been necessary to
~1 relocate some business establishments; this is being accomplished
in much the same manner as the relocation of private homes.
~)
J- Those farmers who are required to move have the right to relocate
on land similar to the land they vacated. In some cases, this will
J
•• mean that a large amount of land not previously used for agricultural
I purposes will now be utilized in that capacity. Because the land at
the disposal site will continue to be used for agricultural purposes
j and most of the farmers will relocate on land they can farm,
-------
1 *"
j
21
agricultural acreage will increase. This phenomenon may overburden
the local agricultural market, forcing some farmers out of the market.
Several ease.,'cnLs p.KSHin^ through the site will be removed. Power
transmission linos will remain on the site while gas mains will have
to be relocated. Telephone lines will retain their easements and a
major east-west thoroughfare which passes through the site will remain
intact. Several other secondary roadways will be closed off; however,
these roadways were mainly used by the residents in the area and will
therefore serve little purpose once these residents have been relocated.
About 4,000 acres of forest land will have to be cleared of timber.
At present, it appears that the only feasible means of destroying this
cut timber will be by burning. Some of this timber land was used for
—j recreational purposes such as hunting. Within this area a private
i
shooting club previously existed until it was removed for the benefit
of the project. A small amount of the forest land was also used for
utf
nurseries which provided ornamental trees.
J No land use plan is in existence for the County of Muskegon,
"i although an inventory of the County's existing land use and its
developmental factors has been compiled by the Muskegon County
| Metropolitan Planning Commission. The absence of a land use plan
at
reflects the lack of consideration that has been given to land use
I*
•J during the implementation of the County's wastewater management plan.
J- Indeed the Impact Statement itself is noteworthy for its brevity on
the subject of land use. Roughly five short paragraphs of the Impact
J Statement were given to land resources. This is particularly
interesting because the change from a structural system of wastewater
-------
22
management to a land system is obviously going to have a far reaching
impact of unknown consequence on land use. Much of the consideration
given to land use on the Impact Statement is focused on the absence of
, ._ land use plan prior to the inception of the project. For example, the
"' — Impact Statement points out that the removal of existing sanitary
"1 waste treatment facilities from the lake shore and the stream
improvements produced by the low flow augmentation with high water
j quality uould create open space green belts and potential park land.
- -- The Statement goes on to point out that these new spaces will only
~~~ be utilized beneficially "provided that an effective land use plan
1 •"'
1 becomes available." This is not a new idea, but one that is basic
^ —!
to the whole concept of spray irrigation with its potential for
J _ effecting land use. Accordingly, the Impact Statement recommended
~~j facilities that could be used for new purposes—be included in the
planning base. In order to achieve the most beneficial use of newly
I created open space and to avoid a detrimental impact on land use,
plans must be completed prior to construction. The plans must reflect
•• the needs of both the urban and rural communities wherever an impact
~\ will be felt.
The impact of a land disposal system on land use is felt by the
I citizens of both the urban and rural areas - in different ways. In
the urban area, the shoreline lakes will be affected. Rejuvenation
** of this area should facilitate development, resulting in an increase
J in land values. If water resource management is to serve as the
catalyst for rejuvenation in this area, then land-use planning must
J be conducted which reflects the nature of that change.
-------
23
The rural area demands similar attention. The use of rural land
is intrinsic to the design of a land disposal system. The system
requires larrc areas of agriculturally productive open space with a
particular type of soil composition. The soil must serve two
' - functions: one, it must be of a type to provide for the proper
~j drainage (to act as a "living filter"); two, it must be able to
J -
support the growth of suitable crops. Only a certain type of land
1 ~~~
' can meet these specifications. Not all rural land can meet these
., — requirements, but all the land that does is rural.
J ~~ The use of rural land to solve urban water pollution problems
1 necessitates prior planning that takes into consideration the needs
1 1
' of both rural and urban areas. Viewed from this perspective, land
j disposal can serve as a. vital link between the rural and urban areas
_ — or\A ao or> 0,-Hnnpt- tri nrnnpr nlanTTino- for t"hf> hpsf IIRP of both* land
^ «- — —.- ~._^,«_...~v — f-_-r — f .— w ~i
~] areas. Planning in this fashion will encourage the examination of
» the forces and demands of growth simultaneously influencing both
J areas. For example, the disposal site in a rural area can serve as
a catalyst for growth in that area or it can serve as a buffer against
«* urban sprawl.
"i *
J 2. Costs
"i The total cost of Muskegon's wastewater project is expected to
be $42 million at this writing. This figure includes construction,.
engineering, legal, administrative and research costs. The anticipated
expenditure for each of these items is broken down as follows:
J construction - $32 million; relocation - $1.3-1.5 million; land
i acquisition - $3-4 million. Land acquisition and relocation costs
«d
will be assumed by the County and the Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
-------
24
Construction costs arc eligible for 55% federal funding and 25%
State- funding. The EPA has provided $6,381,840 in construction
grant funJi for the project thus far. Actual federal funding up
to the level specified for research and construction programs
requires the availability of funds from additional appropriations
— by the approval of Congress; however, this may change should the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 become law.
The EPA could conceivably contribute up to seventy-five percent of
the total eligible project costs. If this project is funded to the
_ extent of its eligibility under existing law, it would be the largest
—j single grant ever awarded by EPA's Office of Research and Monitoring.
_ 3. Construction
*
*•• CoiiSLLui. !.Jon wuik on liie project began in September 1972 and, as
of August 1972 is now fifty percent complete. Not all of the land
specified for acquisition has been purchased due to court disputes
_J over purchase prices; but, construction has proceeded in those areas
—I not effected by these disputes. Sewer transmission pipeline is
virtually in place and most of the sewer feeders have been completed.
"1 All but one access-point pumping station is on-site and awaiting
*_«
installation. The lagoon dikes are 15-20 percent complete and channels
— have been dug for most of their intended length. Work is progressing
-, - on the interior of the control building. Approximately 1,000-1,200
acres of forest land has been cleared and it appears that the cut
( timber will be burned - despite the effect upon the air resource.
-------
25
4. Agricultural Considerations
The amount of wastevater that can be applied to the soil at any
given tine is lir.ited by the ability of the soil to absorb nutrients
and by the hydraulic transmissibility characteristics of the soil.
If wastewater is applied to the soil in excessive amounts, the soil
may become flooded or may not be able to absorb the phosphorus,
organic wastes, and other contaminants which could then potentially
escape the control of the system. (Up to a point, agricultural
yield can be increased by increased water application.) In short,
managerial variables play a decisive role in balancing the treatment
processes against optimization of agricultural profit which in turn
~!
_. creates an atmosphere of rivalry between the engineering and farming
-" interests.
*
The crops that can be grown when effluent is used as a means of
irrigation are limited by health and safety considerations. Generally
crops irrigated with effluent are limited to those that require
-J careful and controlled conditions such as cooking before eating by
~1 humans. Most of the crops expected to be grown will be suitable as
»J
industrial raw material, e.g., corn and potatoes for starch, and
I alfalfa for feed. It is not known yet whether pathogenic bacteria
*~J
_ and viruses will remain viable in significant number or will die
«J after a long period of time after application in the climate in
~~|- Muskegon County. These aspects will be closely monitored at the
!
«_»
Muskegon site in order to determine what the hazards and limitations
i are when crops are grown from secondary treated wastewater. "That
i_i
which works at Muskegon may not work elsewhere" is a maxim that
•' applies to land disposal because of its many variables.
-------
26
A consideration arising from the fact that the County owns the
land and will grow the crops, is the economic effect of marketing the
products that will be ~rown. This puts the County into direct compe-
tition with other fanners and crops will have to be planned according
to what the market can absorb. Whether this can be accommodated
considering the above mentioned restrictions and without flooding
the market is yet to be determined. The Teledyne Corporation has
contracted to operate and maintain the system and will receive an
incentive bonus according to the excess of earnings over a certain
amount of the total profit in addition to a fixed management fee.
.^ Thus, an impetus has been provided as an incentive for economic
i
completion.
, S. F.PA Tnvn1 vpmpnt-
— No single project manager from the EPA in Region V is working
full time on monitoring the project. A task force of EPA Region V
I personnel is overseeing the project and preparing a status report.
i *
Responsibility on the task force is divided in accordance with the
d sources of EPA funding for the project by Division (Construction
~1 Grants, Research and Monitoring, and Surveillance and Analysis).
V
The purpose of this committee is to coordinate the evaluation of the
project and provide technical assistance to Muskegon County and its
•a j
contractors.
« At present the evaluation of the project is an in-house operation.
However, the task force is investigating the contribution that could
«
be made by the Federal Food and Drug Administration and the Soils
! Conservation Service and the Agricultural Research Service of the
Department of Agriculture.
-------
E. CONCLUDING ASSESSMENTS ON THE MUSKEGON EXPERIENCE
!• Strategic Use of County Governnent
One of the most distinguishing features of the Muskegon expcri-
*
ence is that the proposal for a county-wide land disposal system
'm did not involve the creation of a new unit of government to operate
that system. In fact, the only arrangement which Muskegon County
residents were willing to tolerate for the provision of areawide
wastewater management and planning was the assignment of those
' *
responsibilities to county government. Accordingly, the proponents
of the spray irrigation proposal capitalized upon the available
opportunity to use county government as the shepherd for their
~| scheme. This reliance upon county government was facilitated by
n. *
the fact that Muskegon County is an individual SMSA; its county
planning commission is therefore a metropolitan planning commission.
— Consequently, the Muskegon experience does not furnish evidence of
the ability of a multi-county SMSA to carry out a metropolitan-wide
( land disposal system.
i. •
2. Reliance upon Political Resources
~l
v] The effectuation of the Muskegon Plan owes in large measure to
—I the ability of the proponents of the plan to command .the support of
political figures who were able to use political pressure to encourage
various organizations and individuals to support the proposal. The
* -•
funding and certification of the project resulted from the proponents'
j success in coalescing a dispersed base of support among elected and
, administrative officials and influential local decision-makers.
Because the spray irrigation proposal was carried out on the basis
1 of advocacy by county government and elected and administrative
-------
28
officials, the fact that the system is being implemented should not
be interpreted as evidence that citizens are willing to support
application of the spray irrigation concept in their own community.
3• Limitations _upon CitJ7.cn Participation
Active support for the Muskegon Project on the part of the
citizenry of Muskegon County was never requisite for the implementa-
tion of the spray irrigation proposal. The proponents of the project
demonstrated a keen awareness that clamorous public opposition could
imperil their proposal but that active citizen support was unnecessary.
The strategy of the proponents for mollifying any incipient public
__ opposition to the project was to barnstorm the county with speech-
making while saturating the local media with favorable information
~~ on the spray irrigation proposal. In face of the technical documen-
«
tation which the proponents provided in support of the project, there
was no citizens' group, local government or aggrieved citizen which
—, could match the volume of effort and technical articulateness of
John Schaeffer, Bauer Engineering and the County Planning Commission.
~1 As a result, viable citizen opposition to the project was effectively
i- J
disqualified from the start. The advocacy role played by county
j government and the support which the proponents secured from local
-i • "influentials" appear to have occurred at the expense of representa-
tive county government and citizen participation in the planning
I process. The fact that the proponents resorted to bringing a suit
•
for Declaratory Judgement to head-off a court challenge from an
j opposing citizens' group exhibited the intransigence of the proponents'
, commitment to implementing their proposal — even if it meant denying
a meaningful public airing of disagreement with their scheme.
-------
29
4. "Function.il" Aspect of the Musker,on Wastewater Management Plan
In spite oC the reference to the Muskegon waste-water management plan
as an exr.r'^le of cor.^rohensive water resource planning, the fact remains
that that plan is not comprehensive in the sense of multiple functions;
it is comprehensive only insofar as water resources are concerned.
«••
Accordingly, the amount of deliberate planned consideration which the
Muskegon Plan devoted to land use and other functions beside xrater
resource management is extremely limited. In the absence of any real
comprehensive or land use plan for Muskegon County, the wastewater
management plan thus becomes the incontrovertible basis for subsequent
planning and development. The fact that the land disposal method of
•* wastewater treatment has such a direct and wide-ranging impact upon the
~"1 land resource as compared with conventional methods of tertiary treat-
i .
«
rnent makes it all the more necessary that land use planning be carried
I to completion for Muskegon County to prepare for the anticipated impact
of the county-wide spray irrigation system.
5. Tentativeness of the Muskegon Project
~~j Because of the success which the Muskegon Project has enjoyed in
receiving certification, multiple sources of government funding and
~|
J favorable publicity nationwide, it has become commonplace to think
-,. that the Muskegon County land disposal system also represents a
technological "success." Contrary to this general impression, the
*
I technological success of the Muskegon Project remains highly tentative
until such time as the system becomes fully operational and is
J -performance-tested on a continuous basis while in operation. The
. fact that the design for the project has been deemed "feasible" does
-------
30
not guarantee initial, complete success; rather, it indicates a
technological judger.vnt that any anticipated problems can be
resolved through the application of existing technology without
a raajor restructuring of the project concept. Accordingly, EPA
has required as a condition of its research and demonstration
grant to Muskegon County that evaluation studies be performed
over three- to five-year periods in four critical areas of project
performance. Once the Muskegon Project becomes fully operational
and conclusive evidence is obtained from the continuous monitoring
of the system, there will be some basis for determining whether the
Muskegon Project is indeed a technological success. Until that
time, there is nothing about the Muskegon Project which indicates
the technological effectiveness, or even feasibility, of a similar
land disposal system on such a large scale.
-------
31
PART II - THE RESPONSE TO THE MUSKECON PROJECT
LaLe in 1970,'the Office of Management and Budget and the Public
Works and Appropriations Committee of Congress approved the Department
of the Array's (DA) request to conduct a wastewater management program.
The authority for this approval is derived from Section 206 of the
••*
Flood Control Act of 1958, which gives the Army Corps of Engineers
-i
„ (Corps) broad powers to insure navigability within America's waterways.
The purpose of the study is "to determine the advisability of improve-
ments in the interests of wastewater management, ...and[to]evaluate
general alternatives for the management of wastewater on a regional
__ basis" within the five major metropolitan areas cited for examination.
•-, The regions affected are the Marrimack Basin (Boston), San Francisco,
.Detroit, Cleveland-Akron, and Chicago, the last three of which are
1 within the jurisdiction of EPA Region V. These five major urban areas
include 12 percent of the urban population of the United States. The
J following discussion concentrates on the Corps study for Chicago-South
—j End Lake Michigan.
A. Areas Identified
j The Chicago-South End Lake Michigan (C-SELM) area encompasses
nearly 90 townships and portions of seven counties. Four of those
J counties are in Illinois and three are in Indiana. Drainage for
j the 2,800 square mile area is ultimately to the Illinois River through
the Illinois waterway system or Lake Michigan by a complex of
j rivers and channels. The predominant feature of the area is the large
urban area of Chicago and surrounding cities in Indiana. The area of
J Chicago alone includes a population of 7.2 million (1970 Statistics)
j and is characterized by its diverse industry and economic stability.
Heavy industry in the area is largely steel and petroleum. Wastewater
J
-------
32
originating in the area contains an undetermined number of constituents
(toxic substances, pathogens, oxygen demanding wastes, biostimulants,
radioactive substances, suspended material, heat, surface material,
dissolved solids) which may or may not be pollutants. The pollutants
contained in the water bodies in this area can be divided into three
general classifications: industrial wastes which are independent of
municipal systems; municipal wastes, which include domestic, commercial
and some industrial loads; and stormwater runoff from urban and suburban
areas.
B. The Chicago-South End Lake Michigan Experience
1. Basic Assumptions
In August 1971, the first phase study for the C-SELM Pilot Wastewater
Management Program was completed and submitted to the Secretary of the
>
Army by the Office of the Chief of Engineers, Army Corps of Engineers.
These feasibility studies were performed mainly for the purposes of
identifying the problems of wastewater management by improving water
quality standards, maximizing the cost effectiveness, assuring that all
the alternatives considered the economic, social, institutional, and
financial advantages and constraints, and the technical aspects. This
report set forth a range of choices for managing wastewaters from the
perspective of improving water quality while considering programs for
total water management and total resource management. The technical
phase of the work was based on the idea that wastewater management
will be the primary vehicle for meeting regional water resource needs.
2. Findings
The feasibility study recognized various wastewater. management
alternatives. All of these alternatives had three basic management
-------
33
features: 1) collection; 2) treatment; and 3) disposal. The basic
philosophy behind the altcrn.itLvos is that waste-waters are part of
the total water cycle ami th.it waste constituents or pollutants
should he "considered as resources out of place." The study
attempted to define these pollutants and to examine their charac-
»
teristics as potentially beneficially substances. In this way, the
reuse of pollutants is the underlying concept behind all the
alternatives. While each of these alternatives has different
features, they have been categorized into three groups; these are:
1) conventional advanced biological, 2) conventional advanced
physical-chemical, and 3) land disposal. The third alternative,
J land disposal, provides chemical and/or biological treatment to
~~\ the secondary level prior to application of the wastewater to the
i *
land. Thereafter, the assimilative capacity of the soil acts as
• a "living filter" and "purifies" the water before it is retrieved
_
through tiles lying beneath the soil. The pollutants removed from
J the wastewater and collected by the soil are believed to have a
~~j potential for stimulating plant growth for agricultural purposes
as well as for conditioning soils. These tiles beneath the soil
~1
J collect the water and transport it through conveyance devices back
to its original source.
J 3. Standards
1 Various alternatives for achieving these three management
strategies were analyzed against the standard of "No Discharge of
J Critical Pollutants" (NDCP). The basis for this NDCP standard
arises from a recognition by the Corps of the frustration caused
-------
34
by planning on thu basis of existing standards, which arc ever-changing.
ttecMii'U1 the study w.is sot within the planning frame of the year 2020,
the list of accept,ible polJut.mts are expected to be more detailed and
restrictive than the present standards. Two standards are set, the
present standards at the bottom of the spectrum and NDCP at the top,
against which the Corps is developing their list of alternatives.
Thus, the selection of final alternatives is expected to reflect the
maximum purity of sewage effluent and urban runoff possible. This
is an all-or-nothing proposition with no options for developing any
incremental assessments in achieving their goal. Once the standard
-i of NDCP has been set and a commitment has been made to this goal,
j
wastewater management systems which could achieve standards falling
along the continuum from the present standards to NDCP go largely
ignored. Setting such a narrow approach as NDCP has the effect of
i
j reducing the number of viable alternatives that could otherwise be
—j considered during the planning framework period. From the standpoint
of a regulatory agency, the standard of NDCP could well make enforce-
—I
j ment of such a criterion economically untenable. The assumption is, of
course, that the complete removal of all critical pollutants from the
J water is the most environmentally sound way of cleaning our water
—i " system. This assumption, however, may not be the best approach from
the standpoint of protection of the total environment.
4. Memorandum of Understanding
Subsequent to the approval by the Congressional Committees com-
J missioning the studies, a memorandum of understanding was executed
I April 1971 between the EPA and the Office of the Secretary of the
-------
35
Army. This memorandum applied to the feasibility studies and stated
that they were to be conducted with the participation, consultation
and cooperation of the EPA. By encouraging communication and coordi-
nation between EPA, the States and local governments, the memorandum
attempted to lay the groundwork for a well-rounded study. This
memorandum of understanding plays a significant role in the relation-
ship between the two Federal agencies and is indicative of the over-
lapping areas of responsibility within the field of water management.
5. Phase I and II
- a. Basic Assumptions
~j The transition which the Corps made from the feasibility study
.to the Phase I survey-scope study was not smooth; nor was the transi-
i tion made without touching off objections to the study as a whole.
. For a more detailed analysis of the EPA's official opposition to the
-* continuance of the study, see section c., below.
"I On 18 February 1972, the Corps released the report on the feasi-
bility studies and undertook Phase II consisting of survey-scope
J studies. The Phase II report contained a list of 19 alternatives
which capitalized on the breadth of available technology for the
•* best known treatment performance. The recommended alternatives were
•
j ' all various combinations of the three systems previously mentioned:
1) advanced biological, 2) advanced physical-chemical, and 3) land
j disposal.
The presentation of these alternatives evidences that certain
• assumptions underlie the whole approach which was taken to the study.
! One such assumption was that, in order to achieve the best system of
tf
regional wastewater management, institutional restraints should not
-------
36
be initially considered. While this approach allows the maximum flexi-
bility for design, it ignores the political considerations that must be
considered at sorvj point in order to lend "real world" credibility to
the study. Although the Corps takes into consideration the socio-
economic impact of wastewater management, they apparently assume that
the waste treatment method that costs the least will be the best system
to implement. This approach does not necessarily take into account
actual social and environmental costs.
b. Other Input
However, the Corps of Engineers has awarded a contract to faculty
•
and staff members at Northwestern University (Illinois) and to members
J of the Northwest Consortium (Indiana) to perform a socio-environmental
1 evaluation of the impact of a C-SELM wastewater management system.
•
The methodology adopted for this evaluation calls for a listing of the
l primary impacts of each of the plan alternatives for C-SELM. These
0
impacts are then assessed against a list'ing of "human impact dimensions,"
J thereby establishing matrices for quantitatively determining the effect
1 upon human values of each of the plan alternatives. The final results
of this socio-environmental evaluation were not available at this
j writing; however, the nature and timing of this evaluation—as established
m
by the Corps of Engineers—has already come under criticism from members
• of the evaluation panel who have technical backgrounds in sewage disposal.
] The thrust of their criticisms has been that they are being asked to
evaluate the socio-environmental impact of wastewater management systems
j in the absence of established evidence that those systems are techno-
logically proficient. The Corps of Engineers has responded to this
-------
3?
situation by stating that technical aspects of the various plan
alternatives would have to be accepted as given in the course of
the socio-environrvntal evaluation and that the panel members
performing that evaluation should not be considering technical
questions.
c. EPA's Role
All of the C-SELM Study reports have been submitted to the
Steering Committee for the C-SELM Study. The function of the Steering
Committee is to provide guidance and necessary input to the Corps
to insure that its efforts are complementary to the efforts of the
-, States and to federal requirements. A representative from EPA sits
upon the Steering Committee as an invited observer and provides
minimal input to the Study. Thus, EPA's participation in the^C-SELM
Study consists of having a nominal representation on the Steering
Committee which the Corps established for the study. This kind of
-| nominal participation is particularly significant in light of the fact
that the C-SELM Study represents a federal effort to protect and
1 enhance environmental quality—normally the responsibility of EPA.
EPA's piecemeal influence upon the C-SELM Study does not coincide with
1
j the impression held by the public, however. In the news media, the
- „ water management study is often referred to as a joint study of EPA and
the Corps of Engineers. One Ohio newspaper stated in an editorial
regarding the Cleveland-Akron study that the "wastewater management
study was commissioned by the Federal EPA in seeking ways to
J rehabilitate Lake Erie." An Indiana Division of Planning newsletter
depicted the C-SELM Study as an EPA effort: "The study Alternatives
for Managing Wastewater in Chicago-South End of Lake Michigan Area,
-------
38
was prepared by the Chicago District Office of the Corps of Engineers
in cooperation with the Federal Environmental Protection Agency."
d. Steeriir; Co;-".it tees
The Steering Committee established for the C-SELM Study is comprised
of representatives from Federal, State and local agencies concerned
with vastewater management and natural resource planning as well as
representatives from citizens' groups. The following governmental
organizations have been invited to participate on the Steering Committee
for the C-SELM Study:
Federal - U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V
State:
Illinois - Department of Business & Economic Development
- Environmental Protection Agency
- Institute for Environmental Quality
Indiana - State Board of Health
- Stream Pollution Control Board
- Department of Natural Resources
Regional:
- Interstate Planning Commission
•
Illinois - Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission
Indiana - Lake-Porter County Regional Planning
and Transportation Commission
Local:
Illinois - Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago
- Chicago Department of Water and Sewers
- Chicago Department of Public Works
- DuPage County Public Works Department
-------
39
'- Bloom Township Sanitary District
- Joliet Department of Public Works
- North Shore Sanitary District
- Lake County Dept. of Public Works & Buildings
Indiana - LaPorte County Planning Commission
Various advisory committees such as the Committee on Commerce and
Industry have also been established to provide input to the study.
The establishment of these advisory committees is the principal means
by which the Corps has attempted to encourage public involvement.
Through these groups, the public has been invited "to participate
in the plan formulation process and also function in an advisory
capacity." Representing the public on these committees are conser-
vationists, commercial and industrial representatives, people" from the
local sanitary districts and planning entities and members of various
civic groups. Based upon input from the conservationists, a prototype
model for the development of a North Branch of the Chicago River
corridor was established as part of the study. While this prototype
study was done in connection with the C-SELM Study, with assistance
from NIPC, the joint Congressional Committee-resolution authorizing
the C-SELM study is silent with regard to such a prototype plan for
the North Branch of the Chicago River.
The representatives from commerce and industry provided the Corps
with input of a different sort. They have helped the Corps establish
the degree of future water usage and recycling that could be anticipated
by industry if the NDCP water quality standard becomes law. Representa-
tives from the coal mining industries have provided the Corps with
guidance in regard to the possibility oz' integrating sludge disposal
-------
40
into strip mining operations. Persons with the Aggregate Producers
Association have assisted the Corps' principal consultant, Bauer
Engineering, Incorporated, in surveying the feasibility of selling
the rock that is mined for the deep tunnel conveyance systems in the
Chicago area market.
_ The local sanitary districts and planning entities have advised
~ the Corps of financial concerns, operational and maintenance
considerations and institutional relationships. The above descrip-
tions of the various advisory committees and steering committees
briefly describe the ideal nature and associations existing between
—I the Corps, the regulatory agencies and citizens who would be effected
in some way by the implementation of the plans contained in the study.
~~j Further examination of their role is required in order to see,how
these relationships actually work.
J e. Participation Problems
-, The short time frame for the C-SELM Study has frustrated the
ability of participants to contribute meaningfully to the course of
I the study. Because of the amount of ground which is being covered
in the C-SELM Study in a relatively short time and the profusion of
1
J materials which the study has generated, meaningful participation
i « in the study would require that each of the participants devote the
bulk of his or her time to the course of the study. However, none
*
of the agencies participating in the study have been able to expend
the resources for a personnel to work on the C-SELM Study on a full
J time basis. During several Advisory Committee meetings, committee
i members have complained about the fast pace of the study and the
-------
41
large amount of material requiring their attention in that short
time. In response, Corps officials in Chicago have indicated that
the schedule for the study VMS beyond their control and that the
pace of the study was also difficult for them.
The procedure followed by the Corps for presenting new material
limits the effectiveness of the committees. At various stages
during the study, meetings have been convened to present and review
the work accomplished by the Corps. Since committee members do not
have an opportunity to review the new material before these meetings,
they are able to make only superficial observations. The Corps
could make better use of feedback from the committees if the committee
members had the opportunity to study the material prior to their
meetings. As an example of the timing of the presentation of the
»
material, the Phase III report to the Steering Committee was printed
and in the hands of the Corps on August 11, 1972, and was not
distributed to the Steering Committee until immediately after the
committee meeting on August 17, 1972. The chair person of the
Citizen Advisory Committee, Ms. Lee Botts, who represents the Lake
Michigan Federation, has asked whether citizen input to the study is
useful since the tight schedule imposed upon "the study indicates that
its progress will be unaffected by citizen input.
-------
42
6. Land-Use Implications of Alternative Methods
a. Description of Three Methods of Treatment
Advanccd_J}iolo-tical Process
In the advanced-biological process, polluted water
is collected and conveyed to treatment plants where it
is processed through degritting, primary settling,
aeration, secondary settling, nitrification, and
denitrofication, post aeration, and monitoring prior
to its return to the water resource. The addition of
tertiary treatment would remove pollutants and nutrients
which are not adequately removed by secondary treatment
process. Depending upon the alternative, the number of
>
additional tertiary treatment plants varies, but the
maximum number of new plants that has been recommended
for any one alternative is five (5). This alternative
requiring five new plants would preserve some of the
existing biological plants in C-SELM and recommend
updating them to a tertiary level. As a complete system,
the advanced biological plants wo'uld be designed to
handle the 1990 estimated average daily flow of 2376
million gallons per day (mgd) and peak flow of 4154 mgd.
(The Corps has responded to the question of how many
gallons of wastewater per day are projected for the year
2020 with a figure of 4080 mgd; this figure is broken
down into Domestic-commercial-1720 mgd, Industrial-1205 mgd,
Storm-1155 mgd.) The water reclaimed during the biological
-------
43
treatment will be discharged into the streams to provide
for low flow augmentation* The sludge that is separated
during the process is treated and moved by pipeline to
a land site and plowed into the soil as a conditioner
and fertilizer. The Corps estimates that the resulting
land requirement for this system will be 34,750 acres
to treat the one ton of sludge produced per million
gallons of wastewater treated. An estimated 40,000
people will have to be displaced under this system but
this figure is so high in comparison with the other
methods of treatment that it is unclear as to the reason
for such a large displacement.
In the advanced physical-chemical process, polluted
water is collected and transported for processing through
lime clarification, carbon absorption, climoptilolite
ammonia removal, filtration, chlorination, post aeration
and monitoring prior to its return to the water resource.
Plans calling for physical-chemical treatment require
the total elimination of all existing treatment facilities
and the construction of eight new plants. These plants
would be designed to handle the estimated daily flow
of 2376 mgd. The sludge would be treated and shipped
as a conditioner and fertilizer on a recommended 144,859
acres. These plants would produce an estimated 0.5 tons
of sludge per million gallons of wastewater treated.
-------
44
Land Trcat-pnt System
The land treatment system is composed of seven
basic components as follows: (1) collection and trans-
mission facilities which convey wastewater generated
in the service area to rural-agricultural areas; (2)
biological treatment of the raw wastes prior to
application to the land; (3) storage lagoons which
provide the storage capability when irrigation of
wastevater is not feasible, such as during rainy or
freezing weather; (4) irrigation land and facilities
which apply the wastewater onto the land at controlled
rates to coincide with the critical nutrient requirements
<•
of agricultural crops during the growing season; (5)
the soil, or "living filter", which is the medium
wherein potential wastewater pollutants (organics,
nitrates, phosphates) are utilized by agricultural crops;
(6) a drainage system which collects the water percolating
through the soil, and (7) sludge disposal land and facilities
which apply the settled solids from the storage lagoons
onto the land at controlled rates to increase the humus
and nutrient content of the soil by agricultural purposes.
The land disposal system requires a base of 552,000 acres
or 860 square miles: however, none of the estimated
acreage requirements include the management of rural
stormwater run-off.
-------
45
The Corps plans also call for the management of
urban-rural storm water run-off. In order to accomplish
this tat,k, the Corps has devised a scheme of utilizing
in-strcam impoundments to capture and regulate storm
water run-off that could be used for irrigation on
additional adjacent agricultural land. When provisions
are made for collecting, storing and treating essentially
all run-off from urban-suburban areas, the total average
daily treatment plant flow increases to an estimated
" 3,630 mgd for the C-SELM area. The amount of additional
! land that would have to be included in the various land
treatment alternatives, can be estimated by figuring an
-i
— average of 190 acres per mgd into t-.he design base estimate.
- b. Land-Use Considerations
™ All three treatment- methods have an impact on present
and future land-use. The chemical and biological treatment
methods can affect land-use through the elimination of
1
J existing treatment plants. In some areas this might have
~i a long term beneficial impact depending upon where the
i
u ^
sites are located and how the vacated space is utilized.
~t
I Also waste treatment management can be expanded into
multi-purpose facilities. For example, the treatment
J plant alternatives provide opportunities to develop new
j urban industrial parks that would rely on reclaimed
J
water for water supply purposes. The placement of plants
i
1 in an area where industrial growth should be planned and
-------
46
encouraged could result in a beneficial effect on land
use. Also the treatment plants sites can be landscaped
and designed to provide recreational and open space
benefits to the urban area.
In either of the treatment plant alternatives, the
land impact of a wastewater system would be contained
within the service boundary of that system -- in contrast
to a laud disposal system, which would involve the disposal
of wastcvater in areas not serviced by such a system,,
Because the land impact of the treatment plant alternatives
would be contained within the service area for those
systems, it is more likely that the implementation of
supportive land use planning, since those who would be
serviced by a treatment plant system would have a stake
in the land impact of that system. This kind of incentive
for the performance of land use planning in connection
with the implementation of a conventional treatment wastewater
system is largely absent in the case of the land disposal
alternatives, which would dispose of most wastewater
outside the wastewater management service area.
Both the treatment plant and the land disposal
systems incorporate a major sludge management technique.
The disposition of sludge can be designed to produce
beneficial land use results „ Both systems incorporate
a major sludge management technique.
-------
47
The use of sludge for the recitation of a strip-
mined land and for the reconditioning of over-worked
soil are mentioned as possibilities. The Metropolitan
Sanitary District of Greater Chicago has begun to barge
the sludge collected from theirstorage lagoons in the
Chicago area to Fulton County in Illinois, but they have
not as yet applied that sludge to the Iand0
c0 Land Disposal and Land-Use
Of the three methods of wastewater treatment, the
land treatment method has the greater impact on the use
of land.
There are, however, some beneficial effects of such
a svstprn. Throuph the pl.iminaMo11 of tr6?.tTP.6nt Tvl?nts
in the urban area, the land disposal method provides an
opportunity for urban redevelopment or provision of open
space. The land treatment alternative might encourage
power plants to locate adjacent to the treatment sites
in order to utilize the water in the storage lagoons
for cooling if the quality and quantity of the water
•
proves to be acceptable for this purpose,. Land treatment
could also be used to provide buffer zones to control
urban growth. If agricultural areas are converted into
a multi-purpose treatment sites then this land will still
be retained for agricultural production and will serve
as a control on open space.
-------
48
1) Social Parameters
The principal social parameter affecting the
effectuation of a land disposal system is the
community and residential displacement which it would
cause. In Muskegon County, residents who are
required to relocate have a vested interest in land
disposal should they remain in the County. If the
irrigation system works as well as anticipated, then
the citizens of the County will directly benefit
from the cleaner environment. The problems are
j contained within boundries of the County and benefits
I will flow directly to the residents encumbered by
I v
the move. What they have sacrificed individually is, in
j some senses, being expended for the common good of the area
«
in which they live'. This is not the case in C-SELM.
J The residents who will be required to relocate are
] not going to receive the services that their counter-
parts in Muskegon County will receive. Selling the
f residents of Kankakee County, where the major
disposal site is located, on the benefits to be
« received as a result of their move presents a major
j . obstacle since they will not be served by the system.
The possibility of enjoying a cleaner environment
I will not be quite as alluring to them since they live
outside the C-SELM boundaries. The effect of spray
irrigation upon their environment might even be
adverse as will be discussed below with regard to
-------
49
power plants siting, industrial expansion, farming
prospects, recreational opportunities, and conservation.
Where disposal sites cross state lines, planning,
institutior.il and legal problems become major obstacles.
Many of the residents of these rural areas are by
their nature indisposed to concern for the problems
of the City of Chicago and would consequently resent
the intrusions from the "city-people" to the north,,
If these psychological and philosophical impediments
are overcome, other social problems appear to be
equally difficult,, Questions that still remain
unanswered deal with such matters as the disruption
of transportation, communication anrl other utilities>
lost tax revenues, and unemployment,,
2) Economic Parameters
If land for the treatment site is acquired by
eminent domain, the relocation of so many people
will undoubtedly have a detrimental effect upon
the community they will be called upon to leave.
Unlike other civil constructs which displace only
small fractions of a community, the C-SELM project
I
may involve the relocation of entire communities,, \\
The removal of the tax base within communities
partially effected by the move and the entire ,
abandonment of other communities presents problems
of a local nature. At the same time, the j
-------
50
relocation will have a pronounced effect on the
surrounding, cor.r'unitics. Whether the adjoining
communities will be able to absorb the influx of
so many people without seriously taxing the services
and utilities must be considered,, Unemployment can
be expected to increase within these communities.
Most of the people being transplanted will be
agriculturally oriented and so the limitations on
the amount of new land and new job opportunities may
force some people to change their professions. The
Corps, however, claims that unemployment will not
be a problem and contend that land disposal will
>
llTLCied&e Luc; liUmuei GJ. OppOxtuuiticS i.Or WOI"tC. It
is true that land disposal requires more employees
than the treatment plant alternatives, but this does
not necessarily mean those jobs will be suitable for
the displacees remaining in the area. This portends
a dependence upon the growth of industry to solve the
unemployment problem.
Another economic consideration is the uncertain
effect upon the local economy and the local agricultural
market of varying crops on the spray-irrigated land
in order to meet the health and safety requirements
for production of edible crops. The impact upon
the market place would be phenomenal if productivity
is doubled as is claimed. The same result may occur
if there is a limited acceptance of crops. The impact
-------
51
that a land dispo^.il system would have on the market
value of land in the area of a treatment site must
also be considered* To whom might this induced
benefit accrue? If an increase in land values
occurs, the amount of money paid for'the acquistion
of land will rise, incurring an appreciable rise in
the cost of the land disposal system. This factor
has not yet been considered, but it all depends on
the relative wealth of the land owner. A wealthy
land owner could be expected to hold-out on selling
productive land until the price was right for him,
while less wealthy land owners and marginal farmers
•»
ate more likely to sell quickly. Host of these
questions remain unanswered at this point, but the
range of possible answers should become more evident
vhen the Corps decides whether they will suggest
that the land be purchased out—right or leased from
its present occupantse
3) Managerial Variables " ! )
Whichever alternative is finally selected, the
question of management of such a large and complex i
i |
apparatus as land disposal presents many problems. ; >
i
There are basically three aspects of management: ;
t
engineering, operations, and farming. In Muskegon :
County, a private corporation has been retained to j
supervise, manage and operate these three activities., j
-------
52
For a project the size of C-SELM, there is no
existing governmental entity having a territorial
jurisdiction large enough to effectively manage
such a system except for the federal government.
Whoever manages C-SELM will have difficulty in
maintaining the delicate balance between the treatment
of the effluent and the growing of crops on such a
large scale. At Muskegon, the corporation referred
to above has a contract that provides additional
monetary remunerations if profits above a stipulated
amount can be derived from agricultural production.
Such a provision illustrates a potential conflict
that lies at the very essence of land disposal. Is
»
such a system designed for treating wastewater or
for enhancing agricultural production? Are the two
necessarily compatible? The goals of the farmer
interested in high yield agricultural production might
be counterproductive to the goals of the manager in
charge of the rate of effluent to be applied to the
land* One would want to increase his crop yield
through increased irrigation and fertilizer application
while the other would want to maximize water applications
at minimal additional costs. Soil inconstistency lies
at the very heart of the problem and any change in
the balance between the two parties could result in
a serious damage to the soil. Land disposal is
therefore like a fi-ely tuned engine and its delicate
-------
-------
53
nature requires the masterful attention of experts.
This again raises the question of who is qualified
to operate such a systema At the time of this writing,
only superficial attention has been paid to this complex
issue. In order to control such a large area with
so many variables like harvesting, application
rates, meterological variations, and crop production,
it appears that only an organization the size of the
Corps is large enough to manage such a system.
4) Power Requirements
The increase in power requirements in this region
by the year 2020 is estimated to be at a minimum
55,000 megawatts of electrical generating capacity.
The Corps of Engineers has estimated that the energy
utilization for land disposal would increase the
demand upon existing power generation by twenty to
thirty percent. Chicago's power system is currently
working at ninety percent capacity which leaves little
room to absorb the increased demand caused by land
disposal. In order to mollify this negative aspect,
the Corps proposes the development of electric power
generating facilities at the disposal site as one
of the synergistic options of a land disposal system.
Such a proposal has been made at Muskegon, and the
construction of a power plant, either fossil or
nuclear, is being seriously investigated. The
development of power generating facilities adjacent
-------
54
to land treatment sites is a desirable option from
the perspective of power company interests since
such land would already be held in the public sector,
facilitating the appropriation of that land for a
power plant. Also, since an Environmental Impact Statement
would have already been completed for the construction
of a land disposal site, power companies may be correct
in assuming that an additional impact statement for
a power plant would be unnecessary,, If the power
plant were constructed and had a deleterious effect
upon the environment, it could be said that the land
disposal system was being used as a shield against the
*s-%.»_• M A^.. «*-«T £ ^ 4- „ I „,, ,^ « J
The advantage of having the power plant adjacent
to the disposal site is that the wastewater stored
in the lagoon could be used for cooling purposes.
At Muskegon, however, the power company contends that
stored water could be unsuitable for their purposes,
which might negate a major "presumption underlying
the proposal of a power plant add-on. The Corps,
however, says that the power companies will be cooperative
because "the possibilities of paying for the costs for
clean water as an incidental part of the electric bill
is a real one." One effect of having a power plant
on the site would be the encouragement of industrial
growth. With this thought in mind, it becomes more
-------
55
important that the local people directly impacted
by a land disposal system be given an opportunity
to considc-r the alternative uses of the land required
for land disposal.
5) Developmental Parameters
In considering the impacts on land use within the
disposal area, there are a myriad of developmental
considerations to be taken into account if land
disposal takes on the characteristics of a catalyst
for subsequent growth. Consideration must also be
given to planning for the land which would be freed
by the removal of conventional treatment plants for
a land disposal system. If a land disposa^ system
were to be completely adopted, the existing secondary
treatment sites would be rendered obsolete. The
capital investment in these existing conventional
facilities would be depreciated to nearly zero.
According to a source at the Metropolitan Sanitary
District of Greater Chicago (MSB), phasing-out
•
existing conventional facilities would free approximately
1966 acres of land within the boundaries of MSD's
jurisdiction alone.
Most of this land now owned by the MSB and not
being used for wastetreatment facilities is used for
industrial purposes. If MSB were to remain in
existence after the adoption of land disposal system,
-------
56
this land would probably continue to be leased to
indu3try0 Only a small portion of the land held
by MSD for future conventional facilities is leased
for recreational purposes, but freeing this land
might provide areas suitable for urban redevelopment
or for buffers or greenbelts, depending upon where
this land is located.
6) Ecological and Aesthetic Parameters
Locations specified for conversion to disposal sites
in some cases encompass wildlife areas and, at one :
location, a state park. The construction
of land disposal sites in these areas would have a
detrimental j.mp^ct' on both the quality and 'quantify
of the natural wildlife in those areas. By changing
these areas into irrigation sites, the present
habitat and characteristics of animals, trees, and
other vegetation would be significantly altered. The
people remaining on or near the irrigation site would
also experience negative aspects of a land treatment
plant. During the winter, when the storage lagoons
freeze over, the system may become anerobic, causing
distinct odor when the ice thaws in the spring. The
Corps predicts, however, that this situation will only
occur during three weeks out of the year during
stratification.
-------
57
The possibility of seepage into the ground
vatcr is a foreseeable problem to the residents
in the arca0 The Corps contends that seepage will
not occur, however; yet the risks are too high to
accept this prediction on its face without more
evidence.
The hydraulic effects of a land disposal site
in the Kankakee River Basin could be substantial.
The plan alternative calling for a single Kankakee
Treatment Site serving all of the C-SELM area would
require the removal of roughly 700 square miles of
headwater drainage area in the Kankakee Basin.
*
It is quite possible that the flow depletion will
result in a more polluted river as a result of less
water to absorb solar energy and assimilate materials
draining directly from land remaining in the watershed.
This reduction of flow may effect point sources of
water pollution in the Lake Michigan area as well.
The amount of water lost in transit and as a result
of evapotranspiration during storage and irrigation
may well offset the benefits to be achieved by the
system. Evapotranspiration vlll also have an effect
upon the air resource. The increase in the moisture
content of the air surroundir.-,; the lagoons may result
in a change of climatology as the air resource becomes
impacted during aerosol spraying and some effluent
will aerosolize and ^.scape tu the air. Methods can
-------
58
be implemented to reduce the loss by reducing the pressure
of the spray or providing for a buffer around the
site0 Reducing the pressure during spraying would
mean that r.ore land vould be required. The purpose
of erecting a buffer zone around the irrigation site
would be to restrain the public from having free
access to such a potentially hazardous area. A
drawback to this buffer zone concept is that the cost
of additional land would significantly elevate the
cost of the system and add to the total land requirements,,
-------
59
c. EPA'S INTERFACE WITH THE .CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1. Nature of the Interface
EPA has a definite connection with present efforts to plan and
develop land disposal systems for wastewater treatment. The Agency
is directly involved in the Muskegon Project, which h'as been awarded
EPA program grants totalling 2.3 million dollars, one of the largest
grant packages for a single wastewater project in the history of EPA
and its predecessor agency(ies). Moreover, the Agency is indirectly
lii.keJ to the interest in developing land disposal systems insofar as
that interest derives from efforts to comply with water quality stand-
ards promulgated and/or enforced by EPA.
2. EPA's View of the C-SELM Study
EPA views the Muskegon Project as a trial demonstration of the
spray irrigation concept and has not fully supported the Corps' interest
in developing similar systems of the same size or larger, pending eval-
uation of the actual operation of the Muskegon system. At present, re-
ference to the safety and workability of a land disposal system of the
type and size being constructed in Muskegon County is largely speculative
since the Muskegon system is not scheduled for partial operation until
July 1973. With this background in mind, it is interesting to consider
how the Corps of Engineers became involved in regional wastewater manage-
ment planning and how they have carried out that planning to date.
On November 23, 1971, a congressional committee resolution was passed
giving the Corps of Engineers requested authority to proceed with studies
of alternative methods of wastewater treatment. That resolution stipulated
-------
60
that the^c studies were to be performed with the participation, con-
sultation and cooperation of LPA. H'hat EPA's position was at this time
o;i the conduct of these studies regains unclear, but on April 14, 1971,
EPA and the Corps of Engineers signed a joint agreement which set out
in detail the concurrence of both parties to mutually, assume responsi-
bility for the first phase of the feasability investigation aspect of
these wastewater management studies.
Despite the formal appearance of a joint partnership between EPA
and the Corps of Engineers, the Corps clearly took the initiative in
carrying out these studies. While the relationship between the two
agencies was to be one of client-consultant, whereby the Corps was to
serve as a consultant to EPA and State and local governments, EPA was
•*
never directly involved. On occasion EPA advised the Corps on various
technical aspects with regard to EPA policy and requirements, but no
central liaison for communication between the two agencies was ever
established. The position which EPA informally took was to allow the
Corps to carry the studies forward while EPA awaited the opportunity to
evaluate the study results.
In March 1972 a meeting of EPA officials was held to evaluate the
findings of the Corps at the request of the Office of Management and
Budget. This group unofficially concluded at that time- that the Corps'
studies had placed too much emphasis upon land disposal alternatives as
compared with the alternatives for conventional tertiary treatment,
which were given a "wink and a promise." It »vas also concluded at this
meeting that, while EPA could have become more involved in the early
stages of these studies, the headstart which the Corps had by March 1972
-------
61
would make it difficult for EPA to ever become an equal participant in
the studies.
The most significant development in the relations between the two
agencies in regard to the wastcwntcr management studies occurred approx-
imately one year previous to the meeting of EPA officials to evaluate
the studies. That development arose from Administrator Ruckelshaus'
letter of October 29, 1971 to the Secretary of the Army. The letter
set forth the official position of EPA towards the wastewater manage-
ment studies being carried out by the Corps of Engineers. In brief,
the letter called on the Secretary of the Army to terminate the five
study projects as well as any other wastewater management studies being-
performed by the Corps of Engineers. The basic objections which the
letter raised were that these studies tend to superimpose long range
wastewater alternatives upon local planning and that "especially in
the case of land treatment methods, fthey] suggest an alternative
which runs counter to the thrust and financial capabilities of local
planning." The letter furthermore expressed concern that the Corps
studies were not giving adequate attention to land use policies and
programs and underscored the fact that EPA policy is intended to en-
courage State and local planning.
The disapproval of the Corps of Engineers' wastewater studies
which Administrator Ruckelshaus expressed in his letter to the Secretary
of the Army sparked a letter of response from Congressmen Vander Jagt
and Ruess, ranking members of the House committee which commissioned
the Corps studies. Their letter requested that EPA withdraw its re-
commendation that the Corps of Engineers terminate its wastewater
-------
62
studies. (Congressman Vandcr Jagt, whose district includes Muskegon
County, Michii-.an, was ;in effective proponent of the Muskegon Project.)
Administrator Ruckelshaus' letter of response to this request
reiterated his concern over the small attention being given to land
use in the Corps' waste-water studies. In pointing out how the Corps'
expertise could best be used, Mr. Ruckelshaus stated that the Corps
iad an obligation to define the land use impact of their various
alternatives.
In spite of the stipulation of the committee resolution that the
regional wastewater management studies were to be conducted in close
cooperation with EPA, the role of EPA in the continuation of the C-SELM
• Study has been that of an invited participant on the Steering Committee
with equal status to other participants.
While the dispute over the conduct of these wastewater management
studies was continuing in Washington, the Corps of Engineers was con-
sidering other regions where wastewater studies could be carried out.
On March 15, 1971, the House and Senate Public Works Subcommittees on
Public Works authorized the C-SELM Study and four other regional waste-
water management studies. In addition to the C-SELM Study, studies
were authorized for the following areas: San Francisco Bay and Sacra-
mento-San Joaquin Delta Area; Southeastern Michigan; Cleveland-Akron
Metropolitan Area and the Three Rivers Watershed Areas; and the
Merrimack River Basin (Boston). Since receiving these authorizations,
the Corps of Engineers has requested and received authorization in the
1973 fiscal year for nine additional studies. These studies will be
-------
63
carried out in the following areas: Colorado River and Tributaries
(Texas); Seattle, Washington; Pudget Sound, Washington; Spokane,
Washington; Boise, Idaho; Duluth, Minnesota; Kansas City, Missouri;
St. Louis, Missouri; and Denver, Colorado. As of July 11, 1972, these
were all of the studies which had been authorized. However, the Corps
£ Engineers has continued to explore the possibility for additional
studies, and it is possible that they have received authorization for
additional wastewater management studies.
Demonstratively, the Corps of Engineers has intense interest in
continuing and furthering the wastewater management planning it has
performed to date. The reason for the Corps' interest in pursuing
this objective was evidenced by a letter from the District Engineer
of the Louisville District. COR to the F.PA Region V Administrator.
The letter states in part:
Participation by the Corps fin wastewater management
planning? could add to regionalization of range in the
evaluation of alternatives and formulation of plans and
could facilitate the examination of the full potential
for economies of scale. However, after completion of
planning and agreement on the alternatives to be util-
ized, the Corps is interested in participating in the
actual implementation (construction and operation) of
a wastewater management program or. other urban water
resource programs only where there may be a clear
national interest or where it may be specifically
desired by the interested local or State authorities.
[emphasis supplied]
The fact that there is no existing non-federal organization with a
territorial jurisdiction large enough to encompass C-SELM raises the
spector that the Corps of Engineers would be the logical authority to
-------
64
construct, operate and maintain a wastewater management system for
C-St:LM--if a plan for C-SELM could be justified on the basis of "clear
national interest."
In connection with the Corps of Engineers performance of regional
wastewater management studies, an interesting twist of events would
occur if the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
occornes law in its present form. * The provisions of the House and
Senate bills with respect to regional wastewater management (Section
209 of S.2770 and Section 208 of H.R.11896) are virtually identical in
their language dealing with the responsibility to be carried out by
EPA and the Corps of Engineers. Both bills give EPA the initial authority
to approve selection of the areawide planning organizations which the
states are required to appoint. If a state failed to appoint an area-
wide authority to carry out wastewater management planning, EPA would
notify the Secretary of the Army of that failure and request the Corps
of Engineers to conduct the planning for which that state had forfeited
responsibility. Although the denouement of this chain of events would
be that the Corps of Engineers could become engaged in wastewater manage-
ment planning much as it is now under the authority of the Flood Control
Act of 1957, it is significant that EPA would have the discretion to
spell-out the Corps' responsibility for such planning. In this situation,
it might be more difficult for the Corps of Engineers to engage in water
quality management planning which did not meet the approval of EPA.
*This Act became law just as this report >. as being concluded. Never-
theless, it is still too early to determine hov its effectuation will
actually affect the relationship between EPA ar.J. the Corps of Engineers
with respect to the Corps'wastewater management studies.
-------
65
PART ill - THE C-SELM STUDY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF STATE AND
LOCAL JURISDICTIONS
A. States
1. Knowledge of C-SELM Study
The States of Illinois and Indiana have had formal participation
in the C-SELM Study through the Steering Committee which the Corps
--r Engineers has established for the project. From Indiana, three
State agencies are represented on the C-SELM Steering Committee:
the Department of Business and Economic Development, the State
Environnentcl Protection Agency and the Institute for Environmental
Quality. From Indiana, three similar organizations are represented
on the Steering Committee: the State Board of Health; the Department
of Natural Resources; and the Stream Pollution Control Board. Also
participating on the C-SELM Steering Committee are the Northeastern
Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC) and Lake-Porter County (Indiana)
Transportation and Planning Commission.
Not taking part in the C-SELM Steering Committee are Indiana and
Illinois State Planning Offices, both of which are relatively new.
The Indiana Planning Office, which is a Division of the State
Department of Commerce, has been apprised of developments in the
C-SELM Study by a participant in the Steering Committee who represents
the State Board of Health. The Indiana Soil Conservation Service,
which has responded to the C-SELM Study by performing soils tests to
determine the suitability of Indiana soils for land disposal, has
also helped inform the State Division of Planning relative to the
C-SELM Study.
-------
66
That the Indiana Division of Planning is aware of the C-SELM
Study was evidenced in the July 1972 issue of their monthly news-
letter, "Planning Gorment." The issue carried an article on the
C-SELM Study entitled "Chicago Metro Waste Disposal." Directly
i
below that title, the article showed the graphic conceptualization
~ ' of the C-SELM land disposal alternative which involves disposal of
all of the wastewater from C-SELM on a land area lying outside C-SELM
in Northwestern Indiana. Considering the modest good will which
exists between Indiana, especially in downstate regions, and Chicago,
it is unsurprising that the Indiana Division of Planning should
~ overtly draw attention to the fact that a land area in Indiana might
j be used as the receiving ground for all of the wastewater from the
_j
•C-SELM area. Of course, this wastewater would arise from three
"]
-. urbanized counties in Indiana as well as from the larger Illinois
portion of C-SELM, but that might not abate the concern of Indiana
J
residents that their State might be receiving wastewater from the
Chicago metropolitan area, since the urbanized portion of Northwestern
Indiana bordering on Lake Michigan is politically and sociologically
-i distinct from rural downstate Indiana. A more explicit indication of
j the concern which the C-SELM Study has caused, the Indiana Division of
Planning is found in the unusual editor's note attached to the news-
j * letter article on the C-SELM Study. This note stated: "[The C-SELM
StudyD is the type of intergovernmental program which cannot be
•J implemented, if the planning is done unilaterally. This is an urban
j problem, requiring rural cooperation." In the face of this attitude
toward the C-SELM Study, it is noteworthy that the above-mentioned
',
i article mistakenly referred to the C-SELM Study as a cooperative
venture of the Chicago District Offi a of th .; U. S. Corps of Engineers
-------
67
and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency.
2. Foreseeable Land-Use Impact of a Land Disposal System
(a) Indiana
After the. first screening of alternatives for the C-SELM Study,
11 alternatives were left, four of which involved land disposal.
Since each of the four land disposal alternatives include a land
treatment site in Indiana, it is evident that a land treatment site
will be located in Indiana if the C-SELM Study culminates in the
final selection of a land disposal alternative. The four alternative
land treatment sites identified in Indiana are all in Newton and
Jasper Counties bordering on the south side of the Kankakee River;
neither of these two counties are within the boundaries of the
C-SELM area.
»
The location of a land Lrealmeul site in. Northwestern Indiana
could have a significant impact upon land use in this region,
depending upon the size of the land disposal plant. The alternative
land disposal sites identified in the four land disposal alternatives
of the C-SELM Study are proposed for the same general area but vary
considerably in their space requirements. Graphic conceptualizations
of these four alternatives are shown on the following pages.
Due to the fact that the land disposal alternative involving the
largest land area in Indiana is considered to be the least costly of
the eleven alternatives being considered in C-SELM Study, most of
the concern in Indiana has revolved around the impact of effectuating
this alternative. There is divided opinion, even among experts, on
the land use impact which this alternative would have upon North-
western Indiana. Depending upon whom you talk to, establishment of
-------
1
_l
1
J
J
j
-------
J-i CU
JJ o
T
1
*_U
r --m
t
]
. J
•a
1
!
t J
J
n
D
a
o
— o
oo
ra
o
• i-l
^
___ O
„
in
— >-i
a)
CD
v« C
•r-<
to
C
~ W
U-l
— O
W
_ a
j-<
1 0
— o
g
o
— l-l
U-l
— -o
tv
o
3
~ TD
O
^_j
— a
OJ
DS
._;
r~
c
0
U
00
e
•M
CJ
o
iJ
CO
"U
c
o
(J
CJ
00
0
x;
jj
U-J
O
X
V-1
as
3
00
v\
<1)
o
>r^
U-l
U-l
O
r,
CN
p~
C>
^ — I
*\
O
CM
0
c
^i
•D
^
•i
x
-a
D
^i
00
S
W
oo
1
o
o
X
4J
M
o
00
c
•H
1 1
a
Q)
2
•
CO
t-H
4J
S
E
.£
o
rrt
tu
u
u
<
n
a
-------
U)
O
a.
(A
4J
U
)J Q)
4J 0)
in 4J
•H U .
Q -r-l •>
i <^
o E r-
co o o
« O »-«
u
•r-l 00 ~
.c c vo
u 1-1 01
»-i
- 0) Q)
in C
U u 3
O CO *-j
g
%
T)
a
•O
>
c o -o
Id Q> 3
CO JJ
<4-l CO
O <1>
-C S
in JJ J
a. w
>-l H-l CO
O O 1
0 0
X
£ )-l Q) •
O !3 JH O
u e ~i t
U-l g t-t
D VJ ' .
•o co o u
a r ^ C
o I;
tj ^;
^ ^
?^
""* 1
C»
«J
>»
fz
; •
!''
f./ ] 1
t---
-------
-------
68
the large Kankakcc Treatment Site envisioned in the Minimum Disper-
sion Plan would result in either a beneficial or a harmful barrier
to growth. Whereas both of these points of view recognize that
urbanization is headed southward into the Kankakce Valley from the
built-up area along Lake Michigan, one viewpoint maintains that
erection of a barrier to this growth would result in an overcrowding
of population and human activity north of the proposed Kankakee
Treatment Site; the other viewpoint stresses that existent land use
in the area north of this proposed treatment site is characterized
by urban sprawl and that erecting a barrier to this sprawl would
prompt wiser and more efficient use of this land resource. The
latter viewpoint is buoyed by the prospect that various synergistic
"add-ons," such as recreational facilities for boating and small
game hunting, could be attached to the development of a land
>
treatment site. These opposing viewpoints are espoused by two
associates of the Northwest Consortium, which is performing the
socio-economic analysis for the Indiana' portion of C-SELM. One
of these men is a geologist at Indiana University, the other, a
transplanted academician, is the Director of the Northwest Indiana
Comprehensive Health Planning and Council.
The purpose in reviewing these opposing viewpoints on the land
impact of the land disposal alternatives of the C-SELM Study is not
to indicate that one is right and the other wrong. Rather, it is
to indicate that honest difference of opinion exists, even among
experts, as to the desirability of impeding the southward expansion
-of urbanization in Northwestern Indiana. The reasonableness of these
differing opinions should be considered in the view that the C-SELM
Study begs an ad hoc resolution of this disagreement in advance of
-------
69
any comprehensive, or even land use, planning for this area of North-
west Indiana. Notwithstanding the existence of the Lake-Porter County
Regional Transportation and Planning Commission, which plans for the
l\:o-county retrepolitnn area surrounding Gary and Hammond, Indiana,
area'.N'ide planning for the recognized seven-county area of Northwest
f
Indiana exists largely as an idea.
(b) Illinois
Each of the four land disposal alternatives for the C-SELM Study
involves a land treatment site in Illinois. (See the graphic concep-
"~ tualizations on preceding pages.) Two of these alternatives, J and K,
«•
are consistent with the Minimum Dispersion Plan calling for a single
J large Kankakee treatment site insofar as they involve disposal of most
C-SELM wastewater in land areas which lie outside the C-SELM area.
'" The originators of these land disposal alternatives have apparently
~^ construed that land disposal of wastewater in an area other than that
_J
in which it originates is nevertheless in keeping with the ecological
J precepts ascribed to the Muskegon Project. Those precepts held that
--, "the environment is, for planning purposes, a closed system, in which
i
wastes are potential resources out of place." It is conceivable,
| however, that residents in the outlying rural area that would receive
C-SELM wastewater for land disposal might construe these precepts to
~ |
J mean that the wastewater from the C-SELM area should be contained for
\.
i recycling within the ecosystem of C-SELM. Relatedly, the bias of the
land disposal alternatives towards disposal of urban/suburban waste-
water in rural locales evidences a judgement that the suitability of
us
a land area for land disposal is inversely proportional to its scale
* of population and human activity, i.e., that low levels of population
-------
70
and human activity make a land area more suitable for the location of
a land treatment site.
In the graphics on the following pages, the jurisdictional bound-
aries of the l.'or tlK'aslurn Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC) have
been superimposed upon the graphic conceptualizations of the land
disposal alternatives in the C-SELM Study. The fact that, in Illinois,
- ost of the proposed land treatment sites are situated outside the
boundary for NIPC compounds the difficulty of determining the potential
land impact of these rural-area land treatment sites, since areax^ide
planning and supportive land use date is not well developed for these
areas. Alternative K, on the other hand, is based upon the general-
ized land use planning which NIPC has performed for Northeastern
.Illinois; this alternative represents an attempt to support NIPC's
planning by locating land treatment sites in a multiplicity o^f open
areas which NIPC has identified for preservation. It is significant,
however, that this is the only alternative out of 11 being considered
for C-SELM which is based upon existent areawide land use planning as
performed by a federally certified metropolitan planning agency. That
the C-SELM Study is considering land disposal sites for so many areas
lying outside NIPC's planning jurisdiction makes it more urgent that
areawide planning be performed and effectuated for these areas.
3. Status of Land Use Policy and Planning for this Jurisdiction.
(a) Indiana
Statewide land use planning in Indiana, as in most states, is not
yet a reality. As noted above, Indiana's land use planning responsi-
bility rests with the Division of Planning of the State Department of
Commerce. This department is directed by the Lieutenant Governor,
-------
0>
>
ll<
f *»
*>
r w
:?'
: > *
iUh
•>:'?;
jj.o..
;
•J
4
5 0
. 2 0.
.' i H
? » K
>»•
\
w *-<
*• ~* I ' '
us ' a
u. +•• c;
W «i r'
x "1 ft- f j
^ J2 g «>
/ : p ri c:
-a • ; ^ w u:
\ :: 5^
\ . r: w o
. — D w
S^ °-
« • *r l-j
rZ iJ O
O
g
5
S-l
<*-i
-a
| r)
r — ^
\x 1 3
'K 1 -o
Vl o
\ ^
\ °-
A. QJ
\ «
n
:i
11
^4
00
0
:•-.!
-^4
S CM
-3 r-
W 0
.n T-I
i
- -\ _
^ *
= o
»-»
a) a)
0 C
•H 3
U-t 1-)
l.(_j
O :_
U CN|
o
•H \*
M OJ
4J J3
in E
•H 3
Q 2:
-------
/'•I •
3 s
-------
R,
(G
O
a
vi a)
u a>
in 4J
•r-l 4J
o
60 O
(fl O
O
•r-t 60
,c c
CJ -M
CM
w a) C
1-1 4J 3
»
c u -a
W
3S O
VI
o ti
iw C
oo 6
c -fi
•H o
U 03
0) *J
u) J->
s <:
?^
H
H
ALTER
03
i
•O
CO
J3
13
a>
*-•
»j
_>j^-*ii*:
( Vr— j — ir-.-.^- -•>
•)
-•• ~«»--««3«» — W*« "TTCJKnrrfi X»4
I I
/*
to
f<
<-J
-------
l
CO
Is •"~x._s_,
— , ' .1 : j
^^'\-l; ^ \ i=_i_ \ V
v'iv- \. ' o,'^ ^ •>
K. i / -y- " .. .
I ' 1 . *L *-.'-JC-^ _* *
f
— 1 V V^OH | • »
d v-> « ! o i
>-
S*~\ °^
K>^' 1
1-
a -A
^^_ __ ~: '"^\
.v ~i V
0 ,
lil '
2:
<£
^i
~»^^- -"^.— J^^--^
O
O
j
-J
«H
CX S
i N ^'^
^X
i
-•»- i^X, , , . .J_. ...J 1— « 1
,--' 1
x- ,
„» ,»-*•» •»• • j-
. ;yi
\^3
O 1
>-
O
:?••
rs
a;
co
-------
o
o
in
o
3
-------
71
whose tenuous relationship with the Indiana Governor causes a limited
amount of communication between the Office of the Governor and the
Department of Commerce and its Division of Planning. There is a
planner attached to the Office of the Governor, however.
While land use. planning in Indiana is limited to metropolitan
areas at present, the State Division .of Planning is attempting to
stimulate land use planning statewide. Although the State will
maintain overall responsibility for this statewide planning effort,
they invision that the actual planning will be performed at a sub-
state level by newly created planning and development regions. The
State Division of Planning is carrying out a land use inventory of
the State, which is scheduled for completion by October 1972.
i
Thereafter, a four-year work program will commence for developing a
j statewide land use plan.
By Executive Order of Indiana Governor Branigin, fourteen Planning
i
- and Development Regions were established in 1970 to facilitate areawide
"j development and planning. These regions, shown on the following page,
were established at the recommendation of the State Division of Planning,
J which is the official administrator of the regions. The delineation of
boundaries for these regions was accomplished in accordance with two
"^ related federal directives: President Johnson's special memorandum of
f September 2, 1966, which called for federal cooperation with State and
local development•agencies in establishing common planning bases; and
J the U. S. Bureau of the Budget Circular No. A-80, which provides
-. general guidelines for securing common boundaries of planning and
** -development regions by the Federal Government, consistent with
j established State planning districts and regions.
-------
- PECA-
OMEW I Tuf?
fTI ~T;
-------
72
Indiana's multi-county planning and development regions have been
adopted by some but not all State agencies. Agencies which have
adopted the regions are the State Board of Health, which is using the
regions for comprehensive health planning; the Department of Civil
Defense, which is organizing its informational and instructional
programs along the regional boundaries; the Department of Natural
Resources, which is using the regions for recreational planning
-*«
_ purposes; and the Department of Mental Health, which is adopting
-» the regions for mental illness and mental retardation planning.
Other State agencies are still using the regions that their depart-
ments delineated prior to the adoption of the State planning and
development regions. The Department of Public Welfare is composed
J administratively of several separate divisions, all of which use
-j different regional delineations to set up their field offices on a
J
multi-county basis. Similarly, the Indiana State Highway Commission
I has established maintenance regions throughout the State for adminis-
trative purposes. Highway planning on a regional basis is handled by
the urban areas (SMSA's) and is therefore conducted within the boundaries
of the official regions, which maintain the integrity of the Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Areas recognized by the Federal Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). Under the provision of OMB Circular A-95,
which incorporates and subsumes the above referenced Circular No. A-80,
federal programs assisting planning and development are required to
conform to State-delineated regions unless there is a clear justification
for not doing so. (This right of a federal agency to vary from State
regions, upon justification, has been invoked in the case of river basin
planning as sponsored by the Federal EPA.)
-------
73
ihe purpose of Indiana's newly created planning and development
regions is not just to facilitate the ability of State agencies to
carry out planning and program operations on a common regional basis.
The larger purpose of these regions is to encourage the establishment
of regional planning arrangements through the cooperative efforts of
local governments within each of these regions. In relation to this
objective, the Indiana Lieutenant Governor announced, 'in May 1972,
that Rural-Urban Development Councils had been created in each of
the State's 14 official regions to serve in lieu of official regional
commissions until these are organized in each region.
The intended function of the Rural-Urban Development Councils was
outlined in a July 1972, special supplement to "Indiana Planning
Comment," the official newsletter of the Indiana Division of Planning:
Members have been named to temporary Rural-Urban
i^cVcxGDiusri L. vjGiinc.j-.j-S in £3c *i o j- tuc o uci uG s .*. t^c. c.
planning and development regions. A council will serve
in each region in an advisory capacity to the Division
of Planning and other state agencies in the development
of the several state planning programs now underway.
It will serve in lieu of an official regional commission
until one is organized for that region.
State plans, as they relate to regional needs, or
desires, are to be submitted to the council for evalua-
tion, criticism and modification prior to finalization
by the state. Current programs in transportation,
economic development, environmental managenent, land
I use policy, health, justice and rural-urban development
«* would be included in the review process.
Each council will be composed of county commissioners,
'I mayors and citizens, to be designated by the officials,
J from each county of the region. Also represented will be
members of the state legislature, a member of the Regional
J Rural Development Committee, a member of tfee Advisory
Committee on State Development, and representatives of
existing council of governments, regional commissions and
regional resource and conservation and development com-
j mittees already active in the region.
^ ' The councils will consider the best methods of estab-
lishing a region commission in each area. In most cases,
an existing organization will be the logical group to
undertake the regional planning and development assignment.
Most of the fourteen regions have such an organization which
-------
74
serve in an expanded role, instead of being dupli-
cated or replaced.
Regional planning organizations are proposed as an
element of Indiana's rural-urban growth strategy to pro-
vide a vital link between local governments and state
government. They would also provide a much-needed pro-
fessional staff function for local planning and develop-
ment activities—a capability presently beyond the
financial resources of n;ost local authorities.
Indiana Planning and Development Region #1 is comprised of seven
counties in Northwest Indiana. This area is inclusive of the Indiana
portion of C-SELM as well as the outlying alternative treatment sites.
All of these seven counties are tied to Lake County, which has close
tics with Chicago. Although Lake County is classified as relatively
independent, in absolute terms it had, in 1959, the greatest number
of resident workers commuting out of State - 12,000 to Cook County,
.-
Illinois. Jasper, Newton and Pulaski Counties are considered agri-
cultural, but are nevertheless linked to Region #1 by commuting
dependencies. The area contains 16.54.? of the State's total 'popu-
lation of 833,000 (I960 figures).
Lake and Porter Counties, which are part of the Chicago SMSA,
I
have formed the Lake-Porter County Regional Transportation and ;
I
Planning Commission, which obtained its present form in 1967. These "
i
two counties are cooperating in comprehensive planning with special j
consideration to transportation planning, their original emphasis.
The Commission acts as the areawide review agency for its Indiana
counties as well as serving as a bi-state areawide review agency in ;
i
cooperation with the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission. '•
The question of who will declare planning policy and actually
plan for Indiana Region #1 is unresolved. Newton County has passed
a resolution agreeing to join with Lake and Porter Counties. LaPorte
-------
75
County is giving consideration to this matter and may follow suit
along with Newton County. The Lake-Porter Planning Commission has
expressed considerable interest in assuming the additional responsi-
bility to plan for tbis whole seven-county area. However, the
Ciiicago Regional Office of the U. S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) opposes such an increase in the Lake-Porter
Planning Commission's responsibility. HUD is having a difficult
enough time bringing the Lake-Porter Planning Commission together
with Illinois' NIPC; officials at HUD understandably feel that a larger
territorial responsibility for the Lake-Porter Commission would compound
the difficulty of interfacing the two commissions to actually conduct
areawide planning for the total metropolitan area. In conflict with
HUD's stance is the feeling of many residents of Northwestern Indiana,
who contend that recognition of a seven-county planning jurisdiction
*
for the Lake-Porter Planning Commission would make the joining of the
two metropolitan planning commissions more acceptable. They reason
that there is less likelihood of NIPC subsuming the functions of the
Lake-Porter Planning Commission if the latter is given a planning
jurisdiction which is comparable in size to NIPC's six-county
jurisdiction.
*
The State Division of Planning, in keeping with its policy of
encouraging planning on a regional basis, would like to see a planning
commission constituted for the non-metropolitan portion of Region #1.
Such a planning commission, as envisioned by the State, would have
its own policy-making body apart from the Lake-Porter Planning
.Commission—although it might not develop its own planning capability,
in which case the planning staff of the Lake-Porter Planning Commission
-------
7o
wo, id perform any planning for this non-metropolitan area. This type
of tamle/n planning arrangement, as envisioned by the State Division
of Planning, u'iur.U involve, a matrix relationship between the policy-
making bodies for the i;>jtropolitan and non-metropolitan areas in
Region //I. Within this matrix, the two policy-making bodies would
determine who should decide what in relation to the region. This
relationship would be the functional equivalent of the Interstate
Planning Commission, through which NIPC and the Lake-Porter Planning
Commission theoretically coordinate themselves.
The State Division of Planning has convened an initial meeting
of local governments in Region //I to discuss the creation of a non-
metropolitan planning commission. A second meeting will be held
in September 1972, at which time the non-metropolitan planning
commission proposed for this region is expected to become a reality,
according to the Director of the State Division of Planning.
Representation of State interest in any non-metropolitan planning
commission in Region #1 is at the discretion of the individual
planning commission. This is in accordance with Indiana's Multi-
County Planning Act of 1972, which states that a staff member from
the State Planning Division can sit on a regional planning commission
at the request of the planning commission. The discretion of a
planning commission to determine whether the State will be represented
in its membership is a potential source of difficulty in view of the.
emerging Federal intent that States be capable of interposing their
interest in the policy-making body of areawide planning organizations.
The effectuation of Statewide land use planning in Indiana is
keyed, to a considerable extents upon federal action. For one, the
State Division of Planning has outlined a four-year work plan to
-------
77
develop a Statewide land use plan through regional planning in each
of the States planning development regions. Accomplishment of this
work plan, according to the Director of the Division of Planning,
wi J 1 depend upon passage of Congressman Aspinall's version of the
National Land Use Act of 1972, currently before Congress. The
— State is also hopeful that congressional passage of the Rural
Development Act of 1972 will have the effect of encouraging non-
metropolitan planning. Both of these bills elaborate upon a common
aspect of HUD's 701 planning assistance program and EPA's Section 3(c)
- Water Quality Management Planning insofar as they are designed to
""' stimulate the performance of areawide planning by States working in
j cooperation with inter-local areawide organizations. In contrast to
.the federal practice of encouraging State and local governments to
!
J perform areawide planning, the conduct of the C-SELM Study as, an
1 in-house project of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers is a case of
planning for State and local governments by_ an arm of the Federal
I Government. Whereas most federal programs encourage and, sometimes
legally require, State and local government planning, the C-SELM
J Study and other regional wastewater management studies being carried
-C out by the Army Corps of Engineers encourage State and local planning
FSSJJ
only to the extent that they actualize the threat that the Federal
1 Government will plan if State and local governments do not. Admittedly,
this is not the first time that an arm of the Federal Government has
I -
J made a transparent threat to assume planning responsibility. However,
| this kind of implied threat has typically been couched in language to
the effect that federal planning would only be realized if State and
I local governments forfeited their individual responsibility to plan.
In this light, any argument that State and local governments have
-------
foi felted this responsibility is premature; the federal deadline for
final completion of metropolitan-area and river basin water quality
management plans, for instance, is nearly one year away - July 1, 1973.
From the standpoint of on-going federal efforts to encourage State
and local planning, there is a danger that these units of government
might not react constructively to the threat of federal level planning
—j
as actualized by the C-SELM and other Corps of Engineers regional
•"•v
wastewater management studies. If these Corps of Engineers' studies
~" are viewed by State and local governments as objects that will diminish
the federal pressure upon them to develop and utilize their own planning
capability, the cause of encouraging responsible in-house planning on
wd
the part of State and local governments may very well be severely
J retarded. If the federal funds in support of the C-SELM Study and
J others like it had gone to the States and to areawide organizations
v
to achieve the same planning objectives, the resultant effect would
-•j
I assuredly have been to further the planning capability at these loci.
The present conduct of the C-SELM Study does not achieve this result.
*• Furthermore, that the C-SELM Study and its counterparts obstruct
Jthe purposive attempts of federal programs to encourage State and
local planning is especially critical to the performance of land use
" r
* •
J planning at the State, areawide and local levels. For one, the
possible selection of a land disposal alternative for the C-SELM
J
"*' . area would serve to broaden the already considerable impact upon land
| use of water quality management planning. To the extent that land
disposal alternatives are being considered at all - and they are
j .being cast in a favorable perspective - there is a prospect that
, large areas of land will be developed as land treatment sites for
wastewater disposal - in most cases, without benefit of previous
-------
areawide land use planning. Secondly, the C-SELM Study has the related
effect; of preempting comprehensive planning. In the absence of compre-
hensive, or even Jand use, planning for much of the area being considered
fer alternative ]^;-.d treatment sites, the possible selection of any of
these land disposal alternatives in the C-SELM Study would mean that a
functional water quality management, if effectuated, would become the
_- incontrovertible basis for most subsequent functional or comprehensive
~ planning.
(b) Illinois
Statewide land use planning in Illinois, as in Indiana, is
J ,
undeveloped. In 197Q , Illinois Created a State Office of Planning
] attached to the Office of the Governor. Because it is so new, the
State Planning Office is still trying to determine what it should be
l« .-
\_wlxl. A. .4. D ll I- J. w n I. V *J l_ cl t_ «— W -I. t-l t
~1 is still very much forthcoming. All of the land use planning currently
J
being performed in Illinois is the work of local governments (including
1
J counties) and regional organizations.
Illinois, in 197l , divided the State into seven regions for the
•^ purpose of administering the State agencies. Unlike the planning and
'} development regions in Indiana, Illinois' sub-districts are basically
%i
for administrative purposes — just as the U. S. Government's ten federal
i
I regions. The only apparent implication which Illinois' sub-districts
have for planning is that regional planning jurisdictions cannot overlap
district boundaries.
There are 13 areawide planning organizations in Illinois, all of
which are chartered by the State. The boundaries of these areawjW^
organizations are shown in the map on the follow>«2 page. The largest
of these areawide organ^atifw Cor AfOs in HUD/EPA parlance) is NIPC,
-------
Standard P/.Gtropolitan Statistical Areas, and Selected Places
10
! J
DAVENPORT-ROCK ISLAND MOLINE
f
SCO,, J
"
o •
Q
Q
CHICAGO
OJ.T t'.iK,^CHICAGO
HUKSr^i Ja ^
6ERVVW CICfKO
BLOOMINGTON-NORMAL
DClOOMINCrQN
MCLEAN j
! DECATUR ! CHAMPAIGN-URBANA
LEGEND
Places of 100.000 or more inhabitants
Places of 50,000 to 100.000 inhabitants
Csntral cities of SMSA's with fewer than 50,000 inhabitants
Places of 25,000 to 50,000 inhabitants outside SMSA's
Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (SMSA's)
M
10
-------
which is the only Illinois areawide organization that is affected by
the C-?ELM Study.
N1FC was established in 1957 by the Illinois Legislature with an
area of operation ]i;:n'ted to six counties: Cook, DuPage, Lake, Kane,
Will and Mcllcnry. This six-county area contains 3,714 square miles
— of land and 38 square miles of water. It is occupied by almost seven
million people served by 1,200 units of government (1960 figures).
The State Legislature of Illinois has assigned NIPC three major
responsibilities:
__ — to conduct research required for planning for
— the six-county area;
~| — to advise units of government concerning the
relationship among various plans and projects
_j for the six-county area or parts thereof; and
— — to prepare and recommend generalized metro-
i
~J politan comprehensive plans and policies.
1 (Illinois Revised Statutes, 1967, Chapter 85)
In 196.7, NIPC formally adopted a comprehensive plan which has been
J titled "A Generalized Armature for Growth." This generalized plan does
—i not consist of a map in the traditional sense of a city plan. Its
objective was to achieve comprehensiveness, not detail. As a generalized
framework or armature for growth, the NIPC Plan envisions "fingers" of
urbanization radiating outward from the core of the metropolitan area.
of In between these fingers, which are organized around present and
| anticipated transportation corridors, are wedges of open space which
have been identified for preservation as parks, golf courses, cemetaries
I and other low intensity uses.
-------
a.
To complement and further the comprehensive plan for Northeastern
Illinois, NIPC has thus far produced two functional plans. One of
t!u':v: is the Open Space Plan, which amplified the land use and,
(•••.;•... cial ly, the c^en spare implications of the comprehensive plan.
The other functional plan is the Regional Wastewater Management Plan.
*i
__, This plan is only tentative and qualifies as the interim water quality
--i management plan required by EPA before release of construction grant
monies for projects in the metropolitan area.
— ^
NIPC has enjoyed some success in encouraging local units of
government to use the Cor.iiriiss ion's regional planning as a framework
.J for more detailed planning for their respective local jurisdictions.
"I There is a continuing need, however, for local units to "fill-in"—and,
in that way, further—the generalized NIPC comprehensive plan. (The
| actions of local governments in this regard will be discussed in an
examination below of the local government role in the C-SELM Study
«J and land use planning.)
~| Insofar as State land use planning is concerned, NIPC's comprehen-
sive plan—which covers land use—and its Open Space Plan represent the
1
I planning of the State of Illinois for the six counties of Northeastern
•x!
Illinois, which includes the C-SELM area. These plans have the standing
J
"• of State plans because they have been officially adopted by the State,
1 which chartered NIPC and gave it a grant of specific authority to
prepare comprehensive metropolitan plans for Northeastern Illinois.
"1
J- The NIPC comprehensive plan has been accepted by the Federal
. Government as the basis for A-95 determinations for the Chicago
J
"* -Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA). However, NIPC is
j actually not federally certified as an A-95 agency. This is because
3irf
the Chicago SMSA is contiguous with the Gary-Hammond (Indiana) SMSA,
-------
forming a Standard Consolidated Area as defined by the Bureau of the
Ccnsjs and recognized by OMB. Federal requirements, as promulgated
in O'li', Circular No. A-9r>, state (.hat only one "metropolitan clcarlng-
lio'r.e" can be certified in a single metropolitan area to review federal
grant applications. For this reason, neither NIPC nor the Lake-Porter
(Indiana) Planning Commission is officially certified as a metropolitan
I
^' clearinghouse or A-95 agency. Instead, certification has been given to
- the Interstate Planning Commission (IPC), which does not have an
independent planning capability and exists largely on paper; its
practical function is to act as a nexus through which NIPC and the
i Lake-Porter Planning Commission can apprise one another of their
-. respective grant review determinations. Therefore, both NIPC and the
Lake-Porter Planning Commission function in a practical sense as A-95
~1 agencies — despite EPA and HUD wishes to the contrary. In any case,
-J
whether NIPC or the IPC is regarded as the A-95 agency for Northeastern
"1
,j Illinois, NIPC's comprehensive planning does have standing as the
", official base against which federal grant applications are compared
for project conformance.
1
-------
63
legislation, the Indiana Inter-Local Cooperation Act of 1957, enables
rex ioK.il planning organizations to "write their own ticket" with
rrspcct to mcT.brTship and financing, according to the Director of the
St.ile division of Fl .inning. As previously mentioned, one effect of
this largely unconstrained authority for regional commissions is that
the State can appoint a member of a planning commission to represent
State interest only at the invitation of the commission itself.
For that portion of Indiana Planning and Development Region //I
lying outside Lake and Porter Counties, the State maintains the land
use authority which has not been delegated to the individual counties.
However, this State authority will effectively be lost if it success-
fully installs a non-metropolitan planning commission for the remaining
five non-metropolitan counties in this seven-county region.
One important area in which the State of Indiana does have authority
to significantly impact the C-SELM Study is through its federally-defined
authority to designate the organization responsible for preparing river
basin plans for water quality management. Under the authority of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1965 as amended in 1970, federal
requirements have been promulgated to the effect that river basin plans
must be completed prior to July 1, 1973, as a. condition for release of
EPA and HUD construction grants. In Indiana, the Water Pollution
Control Board, an adjunct of the State Board of Health, is presently
preparing a river 'basin plan for the Calumet River Basin. This basin
and the plan which is being prepared for it are inclusive of the Indiana
portion of C-SELM as well as those areas in Newton and Jasper Counties
which have been identified as land treatment sites for the land
disposal alternatives in the C-SELM Study. Under present law (the
Water Pollution Control Act of 1965 as amended in 1970), the use of
-------
84
federal funds to construct any wastewater management system is con-
tinr.eaU upon the conformancc of that project with an EPA/HUD-certified
metropoliLan-area and/or river basin water quality management plan.
The LPA/iiUD interim guidelines for water quality management planning
require int.er-coordination between basin planning and metropolitan-
area planning in cases where both are being carried out concurrently
; for a common area; in such cases, the metropolitan-area plans are
u
expected to be more detailed than basin plans. The pertinence of
tiiese requirements to the C-SELM study is that, under present law,
the Indiana Water Pollution Control Board and the Lake-Porter Planning
Commission have the ability to significantly influence whether EPA or
] HUD can release construction grant funding for whatever wastewater
system is chosen in the C-SELM Study. By failing to reflect the plan
1
j for that system in their metropolitan-area and river basin water
1 quality plans, these two organizations can obstruct federal funding
j
of a C-SELM plan under present construction grant programs.
I Nevertheless, there are pragmatic considerations which argue for
expeditious adoption of the eventual C-SELM system in Indiana's areawide
!
t and basin plans. The State effort to prepare a water quality plan for
I the Calumet River Basin appears to be lacking in resolve. To demon-
strate, the practice in Indiana is for local jurisdictions to prepare
I plans justifying the projects for which they need EPA and/or HUD
funding; these sundry "spot plans" are collected by the State and
I *
8 sent to EPA for certification as an interim plan. These plans are
I being certified under the interim guidelines for water quality planning,
which require yearly certification of tentative plans until July 1-, 1973,
j when final plans are to be submitted. The Lake-Porter Planning Commis-
sion, on the other hand, has been making a serious attempt to produce
-------
85
an acceptable water quality management plan for its planning juris-
diction. lio\:ever, it is questionable whether the State or the
Lake-Porter Planning Commission will be able to complete acceptable
water quality ~.,nia;v riiunt plans by the, thus far unextended, deadline
of July 1, 1973. In the face of not being able to quality for EPA
and HUD construction grants, the State Water Pollution Control Board
and even the Lake-Porter Planning Commission might wholly adopt the
alternative chosen in the C-SELM Study merely for the sake of
expediency in meeting the deadline for final water quality plans.
(b) Illinois
Illinois has the same inherent powers as Indiana to affect land
use in the State. Variation in the land use authority of the two
States is wholely dependent upon the actions of their respective
legislative bodies. One such variation is State legislation or
t
administrative regulations with respect to the nature and amount of
State representation on the policy-making bodies of regional com-
missions. Illinois, unlike Indiana, specifically avails itself of
the right to appoint a portion of the membership of a regional
planning commission.
»
The Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission is governed by a
board of nineteen commissioners. Pursuant to State law, eight
commissioners are appointed by the Governor, five are appointed
by the Mayor of Chicago, and the County Board Chairmen for each
of the six counties in the NIPC jurisdiction appoint one member
apiece to the Commission. Thus, the State is indirectly capable
of affecting land use decisions in Northeastern Illinois through
Its power to appoint eight of the nineteen NIPC Commissioners.
-------
86
The State can also affect NIPC in two other ways. Through its
pcn.vr of the purse as one source of funding for NIPC it is capable
of influencing the Coi,muss ion. However, this potential source of
influence is impaired by the fact that State funding of NIPC has
been parsimonious. Limited financing from the State has lessened
the effectiveness of the Commission and has been a source of con-
tention between HUD and the State. In 1969, the State appropriated
•23,000 for NIPC. This amount was less than half the contribution
of the City of Chicago and represented slightly less than ten percent
of NIPC's total intergovernmental funding for that year. Therefore,
State funding of NIPC is already negligible. An increase in State
funding of NIPC, rather than a decrease, would probably be needed in
order to effectuate any State influence upon NIPC through the State's
power of the purse.
The other means by which the State can affect NIPC is through its
federally-defined power to certify—and, therefore, to decertify—the
plans of areawide planning commissions. This means would only be
resorted to in an exceptional circumstance — with great caution,
even then.
NIPC's power to affect the results of the C-SELM Study insofar as
Northeastern Illinois is concerned derives from the Commission's
capacity as the practicing A-95 review agency for Northeastern
Illinois or the Chicago SMSA. To receive federal funding, the
alternative selected in the C-SELM Study for the Chicago SMSA, or
parts thereof, must be reviewed by NIPC to determine whether such a
system conforms with existent regional planning. Although federal
agencies retain the right to override the decision of an A-95 agency
-------
87
as to whether a particular project should be federally funded, the
OMi'> frowns upon such practice; federal agencies decisions to ignore
A-'ij review recou'veiulat ion", are beocr.iim; prop.re.s.^ 1 vely fewer in number
bJnce Lhe A-95 rupji n_irent war. effectuated in 1967. The resultant
power of NIPC to affect federal funding for construction of the
Northeastern Illinois portion of any C-SELM wastewater management
system represents the opportunity which the State of Illinois has to
indirectly affect what becomes of the C-SELM Study. Differently
stated, the pover of the State of Illinois to influence implementation
of the C-SELM Study, insofar as that study relates to Northeastern
Illinois, is hinged upon the influence which the State is able to
bring to bear upon the grant review determinations of the NIPC Board
of Commissioners.
(a) Indiana
It has been discussed that the State of Indiana has the inherent
power, under existing federal law, to influence implementation of any
C-SELM plan by two basic means. For one, it can choose whether to
incorporate such a plan in the basin plan which the State Water
*
Pollution Control Board is preparing for the Calumet River Basin.
This choice will affect whether federal funding is released for
development of the Indiana portion of any C-SELM plan. Secondly,
the State is capable of similarly affecting federal construction
funding of any C-SELM plan through the actions of the Lake-Porter
Planning Commission, which is chartered, partially funded, and certified
to the Federal Government by the State. The Lake-Porter Planning
Commission, as a practicing A-95 agency, would have to pass A-95
-------
88
review judgement upon any federal grant application to fund construc-
tion of a C-SKLM wastewater management system affecting the Gary-Hammond
(Indiana) SMSA. (If the State eventually delegates A-95 authority to
the non-rr.etropolitan regional planning commission which it hopes to
establish in Northwest Indiana to complement the Lake-Porter Planning
Commission, this body would be able to affect the result of the C-SELM
study in the same manner as the Lake-Porter Planning Commission.) The
reader will recall from previous discussion above that, because of
Indiana's lack of apparent resolve to finalize water quality management
planning on schedule, there is a prospect that the State might vholly
adopt relevant portions of any C-SELM plan merely for the sake of
expediency in meeting federal deadlines for final completion of water
quality plans. This prospect increases the importance of citizen input
to the planning process for water quality management.
Citizen input in the preparation of basin plans for water quality
management is not legally required by the State until after the plan
has been prepared. At that time, a single formal public hearing is
required by State law before a plan is officially ratified by the
State and submitted to EPA and HUD for certification. However, there
is considerable involvement of public officials—both elected and
appointed—in the preparation of such a plan, and these persons are
accountable to the public through the normal political process.
Citizen input to the decisions of the Lake-Porter Planning .
Commission is in accordance with HUD guidelines with respect to the
composition of federally-certified areawide organizations (APOs).
"These guidelines for HUD certification basically require that two-
thirds of the policy-making body for an areawide organization be
comprised of elected officials; that the balance of membership on this
-------
body include representation from undefined "minority groups"; and that
all units of government in the area have some form of representation
on the policy-making body. The ostensible logic of these guidelines
is that bringing the right people together will make an areaxvide
organization both equitable and effective.
(b) Illinois
Through the actions of NIPC, residents of the five-county Chicago
SMSA are capable of reflecting their desires with respect to the
disposition of the final alternative chosen by the Corps of Engineers
in the C-SELM Study. As previously discussed, NIPC has the power to
deny EPA construction grant funding of the Illinois portion of a C-SELM
wastewater management system by failing to adopt the Corps of Engineers'
plan for such a system as the basis for A-95 grant review decisions in
89
of NIPC are supposed to be representative of the citizenry in the
planning jurisdiction. Therefore, the will of these citizens should
be carried out in the decision of the NIPC commissioners to adopt or
fail to adopt a C-SELM plan as developed by the Corps of Engineers.
Should NIPC decide to adopt the C-SELM plan as developed by the
•
Corps of Engineers, the State of Illinois would have to certify that
plan to EPA. Although State certification of a metropolitan area
plan is essentially a pro forma arrangement, it is nevertheless the
only juncture in the procedure for adopting such a plan where there
is an occasion to represent the interests of non-metropolitan areas.
Thus, for all practical purposes, Illinois residents of those areas
which have been identified for the location of alternative land
treatment sites but which lie outside the planning jurisdiction of
-------
-------
90
NIPC would have no voice in the adoption of a C-SELM plan. If the
State of Illinois x^erc preparing a basin plan which was inclusive of
the Illinois portion of C-SKLM, then, as in Indiana, the residents
01" non-metropul i l an areas would have the opportunity to nominally
effect the adoption of a C-SELM wastewater management plan. However,
because Illinois is not presently preparing a basin plan covering
the Illinois portion of C-SELM, this opportunity to effect the adoption
...J
of a C-SELM plan is effectively lost insofar as non-metropolitan
-)
.! Illinois residents are concerned.
* The preceding discussion of the ability of the States of Indiana
and Illinois to affect the disposition of the C-SELM Study has
] revolved around the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act of 1965 Amended, which states that grant applications for EPA
1
.J funds to construct waste treatment facilities must conform to a water
™] quality management plan. This requirement gives the States and
i
federally certified areawide planning organizations the leverage to
incrementally effectuate water quality management plans for their
respective jurisdictions. Notwithstanding the statutory provisions
1
J which provide for this kind of leverage, it is entirely possible that
"1 Congress could unilaterally decide to appropriate special project
J
funding for construction of the wastewater management system
J envisioned by the Corps of Engineers for the C-SELM area. The Corps
• of Engineers has typically turned to the Congress for the authority
-"^ and funding to construct reservoirs and other sundry projects.
~J However, such an act by Congress (normally in the form of a rider
«*3
to a major bill) would require supportive "log-rolling" on the part
1
J of the congresional delegation(s) from the State(s) in which the
project would be located.
I
-------
Congress could alfo affect the disposition of the C-SELM Study
by lc.; i f. latiu;.; :.:o/e rer.ti ict'ive water quality standards than those
. ., presently in foicc. Legislation of this sort, which is proposed
in the House and Senate versions of the 1972 Amendments to the
j Water Pollution Control Bill of 1965, would disrupt current water
j
quality management planning aimed at the achievement of currently
*»
enforceable standards. Depending upon the calendar deadlines
established by Congress for achieving higher standards and for
J
completing water quality plans based upon those higher standards,
-J
local and State officials might be impelled to scrap their ongoing
metropolitan-area and basin planning and to adopt the planning
which the Corps of Engineers has carried out on the basis of, the
No Discharge of Critical Pollutants (NDCP) standard.
-------
92
13. Counties
1. Kncn.-lid-c of C-SELM Study
Five counties in Illinois will be considered from the standpoint
*
of their interface v.7ith the Corps of Engineers' C-SELM Study. Two of
these counties, DuPage and Lake, lie wholly or partly within the boundaries
of C-SELM. The other three, McHenry, Kendall and Kankakee Counties, are
vholly outside C-SELM but contain land areas which have been identified
in the C-SELM Study as alternative land treatment sites. The map on the
followin& page shows the location of these counties in relation to the
~, C-SELM area»
Both Lake and DuPage Counties, which are within C-SELM, have had
—i
i some involvement in the C-SELM Study. A representative from the Lake
.1
>
County Planning Commission sits on the C-SELM Steering Committee and has
j received the numerous documents which have been generated by the C-SELM
~\ Study to date0 Contrarily, the Director of the DuPage County Planning
Commission became aware of the C-SELM Study only when he was contacted to
I solicit his reaction to the fact that large land areas in DuPage County
31
have been identified as possible land treatment sites in the land disposal
' alternatives of the C-SELM Study„ It was subsequently learned that a
• representative from the DuPage County Department of Public Works is a
vj
member of the C-SELM Steering Committee; this department had evidently
\ f not informed the County's two year-old Planning Commission of the existence
and nature of the C-SELM Study.
•' Persons involved in planning in Lake County appear to be favorably
j disposed to a spray irrigation system for wastewater treatment. The Lake
County Planning Commission has prepared a natural resource study which
! considered the use of land disposal is a metnod of wastewater treatment.
-------
D
0
CO
2
!»
I Q
:zl
D
UJ
(0
HI
28
f
i
0
o
w
o
-------
K
6
s
o
z
aj
\ N\.XNN\^^
>VX^ ; X\\;-^^A V\; M\'N;$^
X^^->vv^^S ^J>x N^X\X^^\'
'... J
-------
93
This study also identified land areas in the county which would be
:• u ' I .!:!<. f^r 1 ••'!.'. ui:Y" ril. T'.io Coru.y Planning, Director presumed
that sn.u'la: ];••!(] rr>. .n, v.c-re idcntif it J for land disposal in the C-SELM
Study due to the fact that Bauer Engineering, the principal consultant
to the Corps of Engineers for the C-SELM Study, also assisted Lake
County in carrying out the natural resource s'-u-.iy which recognized the
j_and areas in Lalie County suitable for land disposalo
Because of other demands on the Lake County Planning Commission
and the fact that the C-SELM map depicting land disposal alternatives
is highly generalized, the Lake County Planning Commission has not
compared the land disposal sites recognized in the C-SELM Study against
those identified in the county's natural resource study to see if the
rc identical. Moreovsrs because of
C-SELM Study, the Lake County Planning Commission is not concerned about
the consideration which the Corps of Engineers is giving to land
disposal in Lake County, The Director of the Lake County Planning
Commission stated that "we're riding with NIPC on this." That statement
is also indicative of the feeling of the Planning Director for DuPage
County, who has not participated in the C-SELM Steering Committee,,
The faith which both Lake and DuPage Counties have placed in NIPC
to sheperd their best interests in the C-SELM Study illustrates that
NIPC's active participation in the C-SELM Study is of utmost importance^
The responsibility to protect county interests which has been entrusted
to NIPC also illustrates the degree of success in Northeastern Illinois
of federal policy to encourage the establishment of metropolitan planning
commissions to safeguard local governments from unsavory and unwise
development.
-------
94
In contrast to Lake and DuPage Counties, which are within the
boundaries of C-SLLM, Kankakce, Kendall and McHenry Counties have been
exeludni altogether from the C-SELM Steering Committee, even though
considerable land in these three counties has been identified for possible
j land disposal. The apparent reason for excluding these counties from
«.* representation on the C-SELM Steering Committee is that they are outside
the boundaries of C-SELM, indicating that the wastewater management
system v;hich the Corps of Engineers is planning for C-SELM would not
,J
service these counties.
.j Although McHenry County has not participated in the C-SELM
•t Study, the County Planning Director has been apprised of the existence
of the study and of the fact that it identifies land in McHenry County
| for land disposal. McHenry County has developed a county-wide wastewater
j
management plan which envisions the construction of a land disposal
j system,, However, this plan has not been formally adopted by the County
~1 Board since the County does not have a Department of Public Works to
implement such a plan. The apparent link between this county plan and
I the C-SELM alternatives for land disposal sites in McHenry County is
J
that the Corps of Engineers principal consultant for the C-SELM Study,
1
.; Bauer Engineering, also prepared the wastewater management plan for
1 McHenry County which called for a land disposal system.
McHenry County, unlike the other Illinois counties outside
I - C-SELM which have been identified for the location of alternative land
disposal sites, is part of the Chicago SMSA and is therefore within
j the jurisdiction of NIPC. For this reasorij, Mcllenry County is able to
rely upon NIPC's involvement in the C-SELM Study as the nexus for
!
protection of the county's interest insofar as a C-SELM wastewater
management system is concerned.
-------
95
The Kanka'uoc County Regional Planning Commission was unaware
lh,.t tiu C-Si !,'i Study h..d identified a large tract of that county for
land disporal -- or that the C-SJ^IM Study existed -- until contacted
in connection with the preparation of this report to
solicit their reaction to the Kankakee Treatment Site as identified in
the C-SELM Study. That the County was unaware of the C-SELM Study
and of its possible itr.pact upon Kankakee County is evidently related to
the fact that the County is neither within the boundaries of C-SELM
nor within the jurisdiction of NIPC. The fact that neither the
Corps of Engineers nor their principal consultant, Bauer Engineering,
has consulted or communicated with the Kankakee County Planning
Commission in regard to the C-SELM Study is all the more surprising
V
in lighL of uie TacL LlictL a large corner of Kdukakee CuUuLy is iilcluut:(j
in the single treatment site alternative, which is considered to be the
least costly of the eleven alternative plans being considered in the
C-SELM Study.
Kendall County has not participated in the C-SELM Study. When
the County had a Planning Director, that individual learned of the
C-SELM Study through the grapevine of government officials. The former
Planning Director was particularly concerned by the fact that the land
disposal site identified for the C-SELM Study in Kendall County includes
Silver Spring State Park. The plan alternative involving this site
calls for a large lagoon to be placed where this state park is now
locatedo Upon investigation, the Kendall County Planning Director
learned that the C-SELM Study identified the land treatment site in
that county on the basis of University of Illinois soil maps.
-------
96
Thc;;c naps apparently do not show present land uses. Because the
land treatment sice in Kendall County includes a state park, the
County's forrer Planning Director feels that this proposed treatment
will have to be scrapped from the planning study and should therefore
not be taken seriously. However, the Corps of Engineers is still
carrying forward this proposal in Phase IT of the C-SELM Study and
has not indicated thus far that the treatment site in Kendall County
is being considered any less seriously than any other plan alternative.
20 Foreseeable Land Use Impact of a Land Disposal System
Knowledge of the potential land use impact of the alternative
land treatment sites in the counties of Northeastern Illinois is largely
dependent upon the extent to which the County Planning Commissions
in these counties have been involved in the C-SELM Study. In those
counties where there has been some degree of participation in the
C-SELM Study, persons engaged in the planning function of county
government are inclined to think that land treatment sites in their
county, if properly located, could be a useful means of preserving
unstable land from improper development.
Because a land treatment site would have the effect of governing
the long-term use of that land, it is essential that sites for land
disposal be chosen with a clear and appreciative view towards the
long-term impact of land disposal upon the affected land area. Those
who are responsible for a planning process which considers land disposal
as a method of wastewater treatment have a ^..blic obligation to consider
whether land disposal would be the most beneficial use of that particular
tract of land. They are also obligated to consider whether the impact
-------
97
of a land treatment site on adjoining land is justifiable in light
of the alternative uses of such land.
The Planning Director in Lake County considers the prime
attribute of land disposal to be its secondary usefulness as an
instrument for protecting the open spaces in the county which are
incapable of supporting residential and commercial uses,, A different
situation obtains in Lake County, where the County Planning Director
has not been involved in the C-SELM Study and is not knowledgeable
of its land disposal alternatives,. He is not aware of any feelings
for or against land disposal in DuPage County, and the County is not
considering land disposal in the comprehensive planning process currently ',
i
being performed. It is therefore difficult to assess the potential
*
land use impact of the land disposal alternatives for DuPage County.
>
However, one unmistakable conclusion can be drawn on the basis of
the highly generalized maps which the Corps of Engineers has furnished
, {
thus far:the large land areas in DuPage County which would be used for |
land disposal in two of the C-SELM alternatives would necessitate advance \
land use planning on the part of the County. The urgency of performing '
such planning to guide the implementation of any C- SELM land disposal [
I
alternative is emphasized by the, fact that DuPage County is more urbanized
than any county in Northeastern Illinois except for Chicago's Cook
4
County. |
I
In McHenry County, the County Planning Director feels that j
<
land disposal sites such as those conceptualized in the C-SELM Study I
for that county could have a beneficial impact upon land use. If the J
j
areas which have been identified for land disposal in McHenry County j
|
are not used for that purpose, the County will have to resort to some '
I
other means of protecting these lands ^ince thsy are incapable i
-------
98
of supporting urlvmi nation.
As pn viou .. ly discussed, DuPage, Lake and Mcllenry Counties are
parts of the jurisdiction of NIPC and have therefore entrusted respon-
sibility to NIPC to watch over their interests in projects such as
the C-SELM Study. In furtherance of that responsibility, NIPC has
«\
prepared a comprehensive and a functional open space plan for Northeastern
Illinois. However, these plans have been incorporated into only one
of the eleven alternative plans for the C-SELM Study. Presumably,
NIPC's involvencnt in the C-SELM Study as a highly interested member
of the Steering Committee will enable it to determine the potential
J impact of land disposal in Northeastern Illinois and to make input to
1 the study accordingly.
T)np in riavt- fr> Kend?ll Count"'s lack of involveinetit in tlis
; C-SELM Study, county officials have not had the opportunity to assess the
impact of the land treatment site which has been identified in the
J county in two of the C-SELM alternatives. The only comment which they
—j • are able to make at present is that spray irrigation of secondary
treatment effluent would jeopardize present use of the state park
located in the center of the land treatment site identified in that
county.
The Regional Planning Commission of Kankakee County is unaware
of the foreseeable land use impact of a massive land treatment site
1
in that county since the Corps of Engineers has not informed them
J that such a proposal is being considered in the C-SELM Study.
-------
99
3. Status of Land Use Policy and Planning for this Jurisdiction
In addition to the need to consider the long-term land use
1. p:.ct of tK ].-ncl di.'pocal alternatives in the planning process for the
OSIIM Study, there is a concomitant need to conduct land use planning
at the local and regional level which takes account of the anticipated
impact of any land disposal system. This need for land use planning to
roi^lcr.cnt and influence the wastewater management planning for C-SELM
is no less severe in those local and county areas where the placement
of a land treatment site is expected to have a beneficial impact upon
land use. These anticipated benefits stand to be squandered if a
planning framework for land use is not developed to influence development
or the lack thereof in a manner which is compatible with the anticipated
impact of a land disposal system,,
»
Moreover, there is a visible speclur thai a land disposal
system, because of the large amount of land it would consume and its
unsure effect upon that resource, could incur a net reduction of
existent and potential land use benefits. This effect is in contrast
to the possibility that local and regional planning processes might not
be able to take advantage of the opportunity to stimulate net land use
benefits resultant of a land disposal system. However, the possibility
of both effects is largely dependent upon the extent and nature of land
use planning performed to complement and to influence the eventual
implementation of any land disposal system.
-------
100
Tie Nor Ihoa^ torn IllirioL.s IM.-mai.ng Commission (NIPC) has
,/n, [in i cd ;ni arc .'iwi dc coruju'CiK n:,ivo pl;m, including a Innd use and
n'tuiMl risource t 1 -. •, iH, \N'UC!I is inclusive of Uul'agc, Lake, Mclienry,
Cool: and Kane Counties, That plan is certified by the Federal Government
and by the State of Illinois as the official basis for A-95 comments
on federal grant applications in the Chicago SMSA. However, county
an" ocal planning are also used as basis for A-95 comments, although
I, .anJnj at these levels is not officially recognized by the Federal
' ,->vc inii'.c-nt as the basis for grant application review by A-95 clearing-
houseso
In spite of the fact that county level planning has no status
insofar as most federal funding is concerned, there is a practical
need for county planning in Northeastern Illinois to provide the
detail lacking in NIPC's comprehensive plan for the area. As previously
discussed, the Finger Plan which NIPC has adopted as the comprehensive
plan for Northeastern Illinois is highly generalized and achieves j
!
I
comprehensiveness at the expense of detail. Accordingly, the existence
; i
and federal certification of NIPC's comprehensive plan does not alone 'j
I
assure that there is sufficient land use planning on which to base i
the planning and implementation of any wastewater management plan for
C-SELM. If local governments have not furthered NIPC's regional planning
11
with their own more specific planning, then A-95 comments with respect ''
to federal funding of a wastewater management system for C-SELM will '}
necessarily be based upon apriori"bes'c judgements" as to whether ;
implementation of a C-SELM Plan will effect ca^I rable results,, -
-------
101
• \l;ich is bejuu, coiibi dercd for the location
': in three C-.M!!; alternatives, is regarded as
. ,; pi,.; -iin;; capability within NIPC's planning
1 ,.i;c County Planning Commission was established
it a headstart on other counties in Northeastern Illinois.
'., the County adopted a land use plan, which is
;•• ,-ce sb of revision. The County has also prepared
•>rce study which considered the development of a land
and identified areas which would be suitable for land
• nl :, iles.
\ cause of the aggressiveness and prominence of the planning
\-.\ 1 i'i.c County, the County has enjoyed significant success
•'.• course of private development. Although the sanctions
: -,:aty can legally impase upon privately funded development
<:t irstrlctcd, an informal procedure has developed in Lake County
v . d»y private loan institutions request a judgement from the
••'.s Planning Commission before making loans to fund private develop-
Thc planning which Lake County has accomplished varies
' •'»•'. the Finger Plan which NIPC has adopted as the comprehensive
.'*•> tor Northeastern Illinois, This variation derives from the fact
•»t t.,c path of development in Lake County runs in a north-south
'•' ''• •>, whereas the NIPC regional plan anticipates an east-west
*, * " ?' 1
<•< velopment organized around the railroad lines and transportation
^.itch radiates westward from the core of the metropolitan
• -l lopntnt in Lake County has not followed the path of railroad
*• « vlu:,lvcly and the considerable wetlands in the County impede
-------
102
the r. :ttirataon of the "finrers" which the NIPC Plan prescribes.
In the instances where Lake County planning conforms to
XJ!C';'i r'. rjiorMl pJ in, the County has actively sought to support and
further the NIPC Plan, Local governments have worked to preserve the
open space areas recognized by NIPC through their decisions with respect
to the extension of sewer lines.
Although planning in Lake County is more advanced than in any
other county in Northeastern Illinois, it is nevertheless questionable
whether existent plr.ns for the County are sufficient to meet the demands
placed upon local level planning by the land disposal alternatives in
the C-SELM Studyg The potential impact of these land diposal alternatives j
necessitates that those impacts be considered in the course of the on- I
going revision of the County's comprehensive plan and that the revised !
i
plan be formally adopted by the County. A further requirement is
that the revised comprehensive plan for Lake County be used as a
decisional basis in the selection and implementation of any wastewater
management plan for C-SELM. This requirement is especially crucial
due to the generality of the NIPC comprehensive plan and the concomitant
fact that the NIPC plan varies from actual planning and development in
Lake County.
Planning for DuPage County is in its early stages. The
County's Planning Commission is only two years old; it is now engaged
in the preparation of a comprehensive plan which is scheduled for completion
in 1974, A very generalized comprehensive plan was prepared for the
County by a consultant firm in 1957, but that plan was never adopted
by the County Board. In conjunction with NIPC, the County has put
-------
103
t,obcthnr a codoJ description of existing land use in the county. Because
'i.-^ Director of the County Planning Cormission has not been apprised of
tho C-SLL'I Study, he could only presume that this land use description
is being utilized in the C-SELM Study.
The DuPage County Planning Commission is presently working
*
on the natural resource and open space elements of its county-wide
comprehensive plan. At this point in their work program, the Director
of the County Planning Commission is unsure whether the comprehensive
plan being prepared will serve to detail MFC's generalized comprehensive
w*
plan for Northeastern Illinois. The County Board of DuPage County has
"""3
J previously endorsed NIPC's Finger Plan as well as its tentative functional
-T plans for wastewater and open space -- with the understanding that the
County might want to "refine" these plans when it prepared its own.
j McHenry County, which includes land area identified for
.J
alternative land treatment sites although the county is wholly outside
J the boundaries of C-SELM, has an adopted land use plan. That plan
•-r furthers NIPC's Finger Plan "somewhat", according to the County Planning
Director. The reason for lack of complete conformance between the
two plans derives from their differing recognition of the Fox River's
influence upon development and urbanization,. The NIPC Finger Plan
largely ignores such an influence of the Fox River, which runs in a
southerly direction perpendicular to the "fingers" of development
prescribed in the NIPC plan. McHenry County planning, on the other
hand, recognizes the Fox River as a major determinant of development
in that county.
-------
104
Those counties afiected by C-SELM Land disposal alternatives
which are not part of N1PC are reliant upon the planning which they
arc able to perform thc;u_,elvcs. The A-95 grant review process for
there non-n:ctiopollt"n counties is performed through the state, which
r
is behooved to rely upon local level planning in the absence of any
•™tf
statewide land use planning. This situation is widely recognized, and
is an apparent source of concern to state and federal policy-makers.
— However, the recognized danger that these non-metropolitan counties,
~ in the absence of state and/or regional planning, are ill-prepared for
eventual development and urbanization becomes more acute in light of
"1
I the alternatives being considered in the C-SELM Study for land disposal
• of metropolitan wastewater in these non-metropolitan areas. The ingrained
— bias of these land disposal alternatives towards disposal r>f Vaster-rater
~"< outside C-SELM places a greater demand upon planning for these largely
J
rural areas than it does upon the urban/suburban areas which would be
1
I serviced by such a wastewater system.
toot
Kendall County, which includes a land area identified as a
J land treatment site in two C-SELM alternatives, adopted a land use plan
lj in 1964. That plan is now out-of-date, however,, An attempt has been
n^S
made to revise the county's land use plan, but this effort has apparently
1 become dormant as result of the recent departure of the County Planner.
« •
The County has made considerable progress towards the adoption of
"* permanent agricultural zoning. This measure has been unanimously
J endorsed by the local Farm Bureau, which is especially significant
since most farmers are able to make a lucrative profit from selling
|
j farm land for private development. Although the County Board is
-------
105
prepared to cdopt an instrument for permanent agricultural zoning,
lliul action h.'i.-- not yet been taken. One sure accomplishment of the
county is tl>_ co~>.pli' lion of a soils rap for the entire county.
Three of Lhc lour C-SELM land disposal alternatives involve
a land treatment site in Kankakee County. The three alternatives
which involve land treatment sites in Kankakee County are the three
consecutive least costly alternatives of the eleven alternatives
currently bcin^ considered in the C-SELM Study. However, Kankakee
County has not been officially apprised of the C-SELM Study and has
prepared only a rough land use plan. This plan has been submitted
to HUD for certification but has not been adopted by the County Planning
Commission pending certification from HUD. In conjunction with the
preparation of this rough land use plan, tl^, CuunLy Fiaiming Commission
has collaborated with the Soil Conservation Service in putting together
soils maps of the urbanized areas of the county. By the middle of
1973, the County hopes to have soils maps of the entire county completed.
- 4. Opportunity to Affect the Implementation of a Land Disposal System
The Illinois counties which are within the planning jurisdiction
of NIPC are capable of affecting the implementation of a land disposal
system through NIPC's service as the "metropolitan clearinghouse" for
A-95 grant review as required by the Federal Office of Management and
Budget. To receive federal funding in accordance with the A-95 grant
review requirement, a C-SELM wastewater management plan would have to
be adopted by NIPC as an official basis for A-95 comments.
-------
IG5
The procedure uhich Nli'C would have to follow in adopting such
a plan would work as; follows., Having received a petition to adopt a
C-,-.,'.]/! 'i.aj U w.i UT r,rni.'i,Cement p];n, NIPC would forward notice of that
petition Lo the five county planning commissions in Northeastern Illinois
along with a detailed copy of the C-SELM plan. At the discretion of
these planning commissions, their individual staffs would review and
evaluate such a plan from the standpoint of its probably impact upon
the county and the County Planning Cor.u"nissions would decide whether
Lo enclose the plan and inform NIPC of their action. If the plan were
thereafter adopted by NIPC on the basis of its internal review and the
comments received from county planning commissions and all other affected
units of government, the plan would then become the basis for A-95 deter-
minations with respect to the awarding of federal program grafts
for wastewater treatment facilities. In that way, the plan would be
imposed upon the counties, since a county plan for the purpose of
federal program grants is that county's portion of a federally certified
metropolitan or areawide plan.
-------
107
c. co;;c;.r;TvG ASSI^SHT.NTS OF Tin: c-
];,u.c'J upon the foregoing analysis of the conduct to date of the
C-:.'!!,'; S:•.:., • . :iJ the preccJin; examination of the Muskegon Project,
we submit the following concJusions:
That the land disposal alternatives being proposed for
--' the C-SEL'-l area by the Corps of Engineers would have, and are
precc"-:^l\- '..ivir.jj a hatful effect upon land use and land use
planning;
1"'-.~t the Ccrrs of Engineers has exhibited a parsimonious
—* Qonoem for the land use effects of the land disposal
""] alternatives proposed in the C-SELM Study;
-J
That the Muskegon Project., as it has matured to date3
fails to provide mitigating evidence that a large scale Icpid
_ disposal system is otherwise desirable; and
~* That the C-SELM Study should therefore be terminated.
~1 The underlying reasons for each of the above conclusions are
presented below.
J.
CONCLUSION: That the land disposal alternatives being proposed
for the C-SELM area by the Corps of Engineers would have, and
"* are presently having_, a harmful effect upon land use and land
I use planning.
-*
«
t BASES:
1. Concern for the water resource at the expense of the land resource.
J A guiding precept of the C-SELM Study is that wastewater constitu-
ents are resources out of place which possess potentially beneficial
\
^ uses. The allegiance which the Corps of Engineers has paid to this
-------
108
: :, iwn rise 10 C'.ViC.'ru t'l.ii i',,«Mr con--eclniint attempt to
i,.'l, !.• • it.' iii 1 u;,r u! ',.', ',t >,"..'.tl i-M" i IMI ; t i ; ui-nl •; i1. boing .10 compl i .O.ed
,,t tin1 i. . ; P.- ui v.'.ir,-,-! ,\ lor tii.' J.i.ui r (.".ouri't.1 ,j;ul for related land
use p Li'.ini n.;,
The Corps' conduct of functional water quality management planning
on the. basis of the "No Discharge of Critical Pollutants" (NDCP) goal
.ustrati's the ecolofiral imbalance -..'hicn car: :••,: caused by a narrow-
7J:;ioiK'd attt'.npt Lo niinipulate tiie environment. That imbalance is
due- to th.-- ;>lrurs pl.it >d upon the land resource by planning which is
exclusively devoted to improving the quality of the water resource.
In the absence of land use controls comparable to the NDCP for waste-
water treatment—and land use controls in the area impacted by the
proposed C-SELM land disposal system are demonstratively not comparable
to the NDC? goal—it is unavoidable that attempts to enhance water
quality should place stress upon the land resource.
It is observable that the attempt to achieve the goal of NDCP
represents an attempt to turn-the-clock-back on the growth and
aggregation of human population and accompanying land-based development
insofar as these occurrences have adversely affected water quality.
However, the land disposal technology for wastewater treatment which
the Corps of Engineers has embraced does not remove the adverse
environmental effects wrought by the growth and aggregation of popu-
lation; instead, that technology cleanses the water resource of these
effects by transferring them to r.he land resource.
The answer to the dilemma of how to enhe .. : one natural resource
without harming others is not tnat environmental enhancement should
not be attempted. Rather, the an^v/e,- ir, that efforts to improve the
-------
109
qurlity of one natural resource should only be attempted in the
frnmnvork of totnl natural resource planning which is comprehensive
of the v.v.ur, the l^iul, ;'ncl the air. Achievement of this kind of
comprehensive planning is made difficult by Federal program require-
ments, such as the EPA requirement for water quality management
planning, v/hich promote planning for a single natural resource.
.vcgrettably, the impetus for comprehensive planning provided by
the A-95 requirement and the companion HUD 701 Program is relatively
weak as co;'.pared to the impetus for functional planning provided by
separate Federal program requirements. However, in spite of the
impediments to comprehensive planning which are built-in to functional
planning requirements, programs requiring functional resource planning
(such as EPA's Section 3(c) planning program) are more conducive to
the achievement of comprehensive planning than the conduct of water
quality management planning by the Corps of Engineers. Although EPA
programs encourage functional planning with both a carrot and a stick,
at least they encourage that such planning be performed by agencies
which are also responsible for comprehensive planning (APOs). In
contrast, the Corps of Engineers is presently carrying out water
quality management planning as an in-house activity, organizationally
apart from agencies responsible for comprehensive planning.
2. Imposed need for land use planning to_support a land disposal
System.
The conceivable impact of effectuating any of the land disposal
alternatives being considered by the Corps of Engineers for the C-SELM
area imposes the necessity that local and areawide planning bodies
conduct planning for a myriad of incidental factors.
-------
-------
110
A: '':i" I Ir-1 .-' ;:: '• tin !"ol 1 o< ri 'i;*,:
— for the u:,e of laud vacated by existing conventional
treatment plants and for land which is being held for
future construction of conventional treatment plants;
— for the selection and wise use of land treatment sites
as functional "green belts";
— for determining whether wastewater treatment and re-
lated agricultural production is the most beneficial
use of a given land area;
— for the provision of adequate economic opportunity,
housing and public and private services for persons
displaced by the purchase of land for a land treatment
site;
— for the provision of adequate housing and public and
private services for the personnel who would be needed
to construct, operate and maintain a land disposal
wastewater system (the Corps has acknowledged that a
land disposal system would require arore manpower than
an AWT system); and
— for the effect of a land treatment site upon the value
and use of adjoining land.
Because these planning considerations involve fundamental questions
of how people want to live, they deserve to be addressed by local and
areawide planning agencies which are directly responsible to the people
who would be most affected by a land disposal s/stem. The U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers does not meet the criterion of being democratically
responsible to the people who are directly imprcted by Corps' projects.
-------
Ill
Yet most of the local agencies which do meet this criterion do not
,!•-, yet l,.i\e tlu- capability Lo ussuuo. the utidi t i on,-;! responsibility
vliicii t;,. (.'- ' i" Plmiy represents for then;.
3. ]'\r1i-i! ^ i' n oi'_ j»Ln n n i i:" controversies .
The existence and nature of the C-SELM Study as carried out by
the Corps of Engineers exploits previously existent planning con-
troversies. Two such controversies which the C-SELM Study has
.icrriitiKit ed are (]) the tenuous relationship between the North-
eastern Illinois Planning Commission and the Lake-Porter (Indiana)
riannJnj1, Co; ;r,i ssion and (2) the question of who will plan for the
non-metropolitan area of Northwestern Indiana.
The conduct of the C-SELM Study by the Corps of Engineers abuses
the relationship between NIPC and the Lake-Porter Planning Commission
*
in two ways. Jcr one, the existence of the C-SLK1 Study as an initia-
tive of the Federal Government decreases the need for NIPC and the
Lake-Porter Planning Commission to conduct cooperative wastewater
management planning for the consolidated Chicago-Gary metropolitan
area. In this way, Federal pressure to encourage the development of
such a oooperative metropolitan-wide planning process is under-cut,
since the Corps of Engineers has voluntarily assumed the unfulfilled
responsibility of the two metropolitan planning commissions to carry
out unified planning for the bi-state area. The Chicago-Gary con-
solidated metropolitan area thus becomes an appropriate setting
wherein the Corps of Engineers can demonstrate to the Congress that
it is singularly capable of carrying out wastewater management planning
that will facilitate the achievement of cost-effective regional waste-
water systems.
-------
112
The second way in which the tenuous relationship between NIPC
jiul the L.-ike-1'or ter PLuming Coni.ui.sbioii is abused by the conduct of
tl • C-S;;i'! StuJv relate to the question of who would manage a
rei'.ioml v;u;tev.'ater system for the C-SELM area. Because there is
no existing government authority having a territorial jurisdiction
of sufficient size to manage a C-SELM wastewater system, there is a
likely prospect that the Corps of Engineers will end up having the
responsibility to construct, operate and maintain such a system -
provided that it can successfully demonstrate that the "national
interest" clearly warrants its involvement. Leaving aside the
question of whether C-SELM area residents would be amenable to a
I
regional wastewater system managed by the Corps of Engineers or to
1 a bi-state regional wastewater management authority in general,
should the Corps of Engineers assume construction and/or managerial
j responsibility for a C-SELM system it would destroy the checks and
balances which are normally thought to obtain from dividing planning
and management responsibilities between separate organizational
entities.
A'second controversy which is exploited by the C-SELM Study is
, the question of who will plan for the non-metropolitan area of
Northwestern Indiana. The relationship between this controversy
and the C-SELM Study arise from the fact that the least costly
wastewater treatment alternative proposed by the Corps of Engineers
for the C-SELM area would involve a large land treatment site in
Northwest Indiana, creating a functional barrier to the path of
urbanization running southward from the Gary-Hammond (Indiana) area.
Whether such a barrier would have a desirable effect upon land use
-------
113
and human opportunity is arguable on both sides - yet the crucial
fact is that there is currently no planning function for the area
winch would receive this large treatment site which is capable of
resolving this argument. Because this area lies outside the Gary-
Hammond SMSA, the proposal for this treatment site would have to be
incorporated in the basin plan for the Calumet River which the State
cf Indiana is preparing as a condition for receiving Federal funds
for construction of waste treatment and se;-7erage facilities. However,
the basin planning process, because of its negligible opportunity for
citizen participation, is an inappropriate instrument for adopting a
wastewater management plan having such a significant impact upon land
use and human opportunities. Should the Lake-Porter Planning Commis-
sion be allowed to extend its planning jurisdiction to this non-
metropolitan area, there would be greater assurances of citizen
participation in the adoption of a wastewater plan since HUD requires
that an areawide planning organization take certain specific steps
to ensure citizen participation before it is Federally certified.
However, empowering the Lake-Porter Planning Commission to plan for
non-metropolitan Northwestern Indiana would o.nly make it more diffi-
cult to resolve the larger problem of how to draw together NIPC and
the Lake-Porter Planning Commission. For this reason, HUD's Chicago
Regional Office is predisposed against extending the Lake-Porter
Planning Commission's planning jurisdiction to any non-metropolitan
area.
4. Counteracts Federal policy to encourage development of State-Local
areawide planning functions.
The thrust of Federal policy with respect to functional and compre-
hensive planning, as represented by the EPA/HUD agreement for water
-------
114
ou.tlity n in.'.'M'Tiu'iU plmminc,, Is to encourage tho formation of areawido
planning organizations. These areawidc organizations, which arc given
an i'. !>ru ! 1 n-type jurisdiction over balkanizcd local governments, are
expected to carry out the various kinds of planning which are necessary
for judicious administration of Federal programs. Unlike the EPA and
HUD programs which contain financial incentives and punitive sanctions
to encourage areauide planning, the conduct of the C-SELM Study by the
Corps ol Engineers does not encourage State and local governments to
ar,:iu;:ic conjunctive responsibility for areawide planning. In fact,
Federal encouragement for State-local planning inheres so strongly in
Federal program requirements that the absence of any such encouragement
in the conduct of the C-SELM Study constitutes a discouragement for
State-local planning by comparison. Furthermore, the fact that the
Corps of Engineers is carrying out a planning process intended to
produce a wastewater management plan for eventual adoption by areawide
planning organizations serves to reduce the specific Federal pressure
upon these organizations to produce a wastewater management plan.
§ In its zest to provide a long-range wastewater management plan for
- the C-SELM area., the Corps of Engineers has demonstrated its indiffer-
ence to the need for a viable planning capability at the areawide level.
| ^ The creation of a viable planning function capable of developing areawide
comprehensive plans represents a revolutionary, long-range accomplishment
J of considerable more importance than the development of any long-range
* plan, as obliquely recognized in the A-95 requirement and concomitant
EPA and HUD policy. Moreover, the need for developing a competent
j in-house planning function at the State, areawide and local levels has
J
-------
115
as.sur.ii/d even greater importance due to the increasing recognition that
planning Lx a continual process, not a one-shot affair.
It is observable th.it the funds which Congress appropriated at the
request of the Corps of Engineers to fund the C-SELM Study could
-1 alternatively have gone to NIPC and the Lake-Porter Planning Commission.
""" Had this occurred, these funds would have served the tandem purpose of
)
••_»
supporting the development of a regional xvastewater management plan
while, at the, same time, supporting the development of a stronger
_, metropolitan-level planning capability. For example, the Corps of
"1 Engineers has received congressional funding for the C-SELM Study
_.
J totaling just over $1 million, while NIPC's total fundings from govern-
1
1 ment sources in 1971 amounted to only $850,000. Against the claim of
J those who would argue that the Corps of Engineers is better qualified
—i -, than a metropolitan planning commission to conduct regional wastewater
"1 management planning, it is noteworthy that the Corps has contracted a
J private engineering firm to carry out the actual planning for the C-SELM
I Study. This realization flies in the face of any argument that the
„_ Corps of Engineers is singularly well-equipped to conduct regional
J
** —» wastewater management planning.
"1 5. Pre-emption of comprehensive planning.
I In the absence of comprehensive, or even land use, planning for much
3" J
of the area being considered for alternative land treatment sites, the
< I
«J possible selection of any of these land disposal alternatives in the
i C-SELM Study would mean that a functional water quality management
"*^ plan, if effectuated, would become the incontrovertible basis for most
I subsequent functional or comprehensive planning.
~ J
-------
116
r.CLVSIO'l: That il:c Corps of Engineers has exhibited a
LJ:c land use effects of land
BASKS:
A
1. Choice of wnstewatcr system on the basis of costs.
» — ' ' ' '
}
j _^ The willingness of the Corps of Engineers to select a wastewater
- — uinno^.c'.ncnt system for the C-SELM area on the basis of economic costs
.11
indicates their parsinonious concern for the land use effects of the
- _j
various plan alternatives. In the absence of economic controls to
i stimulate wise j.and use in the areas identified for land treatment
J .^ sites, the market price of that land will not reflect the social
S
*a ~"A cost of its various uses — especially where land use planning has
J
' not been performed to determine the most beneficial use of that
_, J
land based upon areawide needs. Accordingly, the plan alternatives
" I
«
* — * social costs of the proposed use of that land.
1 The justification WE Ich the Corps uses for not making an attempt
4
I to assess the social costs of their land disposal alternatives is
»J
? that the benericial effects of ..; ;.and disposal system, i.e., the
' ~
•*
synergistic add-ons ascr'jed to tae system, such as open space
j preservation and power -/.^n... bjriag, would outweigh any conceivable
. J
ar-,-.:,.se irr., . L.:; , ther- ••• -,uc r : net benefic.1: > It is observable
that this ^rgujient ag, . , ast. • - • • ,^:.. ^ng the so!-'.:,I costs of the Corps'
«*
land dispcsal alterr, .uivet _? oas/ed upon three oblique assumptions:
J chat the benefits ascribed to , land disposal system exist; that
tboy could <: td would b; re^^ti'; and that their economic costs
exceeds the cost of ,., ./er~- effects. Only the first of these
_ which the Corps of Engineers have costed do not reflect the true
1
-------
117
three ar.:uinptions hns bean addressed, and it was addressed from a
conooptu;il sun.'lpoi nt .'•.inco, until the Muskegon Project is in full
op- i,u ion, th- '/'.• i;-. iv iv.piric.1! evidence that a laud disposal
*
system is capable of sustaining riultiplc benefits.
A related feature of the C-SELM Study is that it tends to
externalize the possible adverse effects of its land disposal
alternatives. Because the land disposal alternatives for C-SELM
are biased tovares disposal of wastewatcr outside the vastewater
J
nvma-or.cnL service area (C-STL?!) , tiie possible adverse costs of
I land treatment sites would be externalized from the C-SELM area.
It is noteworthy in this connection that the primary thrust of the
i
"^ 1972 Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality was that
'1 environmental degradation has occurred in the United States because
**i
of the ability of individuals and organizations within our market
j structure to externalize the adverse socio-environmental costs of
tl air activity.
]
. Exclusiveness of participation in the S-SELM Study.
> Participation in the C-SELM Study on the part of the government
J
jurisdictions which would be most directly affected by the location
f of land sites is significant by its absence. At the county level,
participation in the C--3ELM Study has oeen l.i ni^ed to the government
** unit? which v>, i.ld be serviced by the wastewater management system
'" pr: -fiC'-.-ti. -or / ~;IELM, The counties which lie -'utsiae the C-SELM area
<*
but -••.., -h . Qi , ii.n la.'-. ceas identified for alternative land treatment
sic-r-s nave n ,t oeers i.,--ited to participate in r.he .-teering Committee
for ,,ne C-SEL;. Study ...;.( in most cases, they have been unaware that
-------
118
the planning study exists. It is apparent, therefore, that the Corps
of Engineers has nude participation in the C-SELM Study dependent upon
v.hether a govern:;.on t al jurisdiction would be serviced by the proposed
C-SLI/! wastew.itcr manage nent system. The fact that a governmental
jurisdiction might be impacted by the location of a land treatment
! site is demonstrably irrelevant to the Corps' consideration of who
should participate in its planning process, indicating that the
Corps' concern for regional vastevater management occurs at the
' expense of concern for land use and land use planning.
3 • Failure of tj.-' •.,.<"- s to address the land impact of land
1 ""* d^i s p o sal a 11 e r_i..,' , _' ,
^ -n
I As previously dis ssed, local and areawide planning agencies are
^ OK
, best suited to address those planning contingencies requiring local
—i
_ action to manipulate the impact of a land disposal system in accordance
- ~ with public choice, e.g., the need to use land treatment sites, if
] possible, as Instruments for achieving desired growth patterns. The
J public accessibility of these loca*. institutions uniquely qualifies
.
* tit:•-. to address s'ich qu< ~;rion?. ilt ough there is considerable question
j thar hey have the prefer:.- capa, . lity to fulfill the responsibility
-| for* ec' ,pc t m by :;i- .-SELM ay. In contradistinction to these
| local r - .ir.il i tie- , • re.sp.n , .ility for determining the
"I potential . nL-ienta ,; . ,ce treatment components, including
their impi t j^n the , . -t I tl;e responsibility for clearly
«i identi^^ .; 'hat pofun. .a. impact it a requisite function of the
s planning pcc,-t-.s wherein ^ land disposal system is proposed. The
following ai-. as in whi t the components of a land disposal system
-------
119
impact the land resource are among the considerations which
should be explicitly addressed within the framework of the planning
-. prod.;..*; for s;ucii a .s>stom:
— the cnv i runi.'.fnt a L impact of the increased power
generation required to run a land disposal system
l
' and the land impact of establishing additional power
generation facilities;
— the impact of a land treatment site upon natural
~' plants and wildlife;
I — the land use and human impact of the odors produced
1
_J[ by springtime thawing of effluent storage lagoons;
—. J — the land use, recreational and water quality impact
~) of the flow depletion which a land disposal system
"•"•» •*
1 would occasion (roughly 700 square miles of the
—i -,
| Kankakee River would be removed by the establishment
1
J of the Kankakee Land Treatment Site);
p««« -J — the land impact "f possible migration of groundwaters
~\ from a land treatment site; and
— the effect of thv. aerosol from spray irrigation upon
n«
the usability of a land treatment site and adjacent
——i —
1. land,
•-* "* The potential impart which a land disposal system for the C-SELM
I area wo'.i.i " »v-' in thr above areas has thus far not been determined
in the C-SELM Study, '.-inch has focused almost exclusively upon the
! water resc - :>
-------
120 ;
CONCLUSION: That the Muskeg on Project, as it has matured to
date, failc to rt'cvidr mitigating evidence that a large scale
l.v.i J;V:\v :." .-^r •••; :'.? dcc'-r^-le.
MSLS:
In view of the observations underlying the preceding conclusions
with respect to the conduct of the C-SELM Study, the only justifica-
tion for carrying forward the land disposal alternatives proposed
by the Corps of Engineers for the C-SELM area is the prospect that
a land disposal systtr. would otherwise be desirable — notwithstanding
the conditions created by the planning process wherein the land
disposal alternatives were conceived. Based upon this report's
i
examination of the Muskegon Project as it has matured to date, '.
assumption that a land disposal system for the C-SELM area would
*
l>t; uebifctbltf lb -'iLnouL foundation. The reasons ior discarding this
assumptions on the basis of our examination of che Muskegon experience,
are reviewed below.
1. Absent indication of public acceptability. ;
The history of the Muskegon Project offers proof to the contrary
that the public would accept a land disposal system requiring the j
establishment of a new government authority "having an umbrella »
jurisdiction over local governments. The residents of Muskegon
routinely refused a succession of a'.-icmptt, to provide for improved
wastewater mar.agenitr. b- altering government arrangements. The fact
i
that MUSKC,:.C.\ County r^as rusintaJ: ^ .• continue .:, overall responsibility S
for the count\ .vide ^.ar.:. dispo--,. 1. ^ystem was largely responsible for
the passivity ol county reside,,r,•; towards tae implementation of that
systen, {
-------
121
In stark contrast to the Muskegon experience, the establishment
of a riv imini vnstrv.v.ter nann^cment system for the C-SELM area would
necess.ir i ly require ilio estnbi ishi-.ent — or intervention—of sone
authority hjving jurisdiction over thirteen counties and untold local
governments in parts of two States. Included in that jurisdiction
would be such powerfully guarded institutions as the Cities of Chicago
and Gary, Indiana and the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater
Chicago — in addition to many of the 1400 local governments which
quilt the Chicago SMSA. That the residents of the C-SELM area are
not unlike Muskegon County residents in their psychic and historical
attachment to existing institutions has been manifested by their
reluctance to support metropolitan-wide planning, which is a relatively
innocuous government function as compared to a regional wastewater
>
management authority. NIPC, as an agency without real operating
responsibility making it largely dependent upon its advisory powers,
has taken 15 years and considerable Federal backing to establish an
Institutional toe-hold as the areawide planning agency for the
five-county Chicago SMSA; and the combined efforts of numerous
Federal agencies to establish a bridge over the Indiana-Illinois
State line by integrating NIPC and the Lake-Porter (Indiana)
Planning Commission have still not brought success, all of which
augurs unfavorably for the prospect of establishing a regional
wastewater management authority for the C-SELM area.
In the face of public opposition to the implementation of new
technologies requiring an alteration of existing social patterns or
political or governmental arrangements, indignant proponents of
such projects are often wont to contend that the public does not
-------
12
always know what is best nnJ that a higher level of government should ,
therefore, be fuir.c'.onecl to encourage or require implementation of the
proposed JcCieii. Upon ox.iui 11,11 ion it i.s apparent that this type of
rt'i.ponr.e to public opposition bears a certain sense of elitism and
repugnance to the concept: of democratic government. A case in point
is the statement of the Corps of Engineers that it is interested in
construction and operation a regional wastewater management system
oaly if such action could be justified on the basis of a "clear
compelling national interest." Upon examination, it is observable
that the phrase "clear compelling national interest" is merely a
euphemism for the rationale that a certain action is justified if a
governmental jurisdiction larger than the jurisdiction directly
affected by that action says so.
»
Those who prescribe technological solutions appear to be at least
cognizant of the need to develop technological solutions which do not
incur technological problems of a difference sort — yet they often
ignore or fail to realize that a viable technological solution may
have a deleterious effect upon the social, economic or political
well-being of people. That kind of indifference, which is typified
in the conduct of the C-SELM Study, manifests a judgement that the
well-being of the physical environment is more important than human
well-being or that human well-being is directly dependent upon the
well-being of their physical environment. In reference to the C-SELM
Study, the felt-need to implement a technology for regional wastewater
management would unavoidably require the institution of a regional
wastewater management authority, removing the citizenry by a giant
-------
step from the locus of authority for an essential public service. In
addition to rendering the public less able to participate in the
{'.ovi-rnance of vastevjter iPanaj'.t-'Monl:, the upward removal of local
» ['.overnrr.ent authority for wastewater management would serve to dull
the will of citizens to participate in the affairs of local government
by lessening the importance and responsibility of those units of
government. Hence, the foreseeable public opposition to the erection
of a regional wastewater iranagenent authority for the C-SELM area
should not be characterized as an obstruction to real progress, for
I such public defiance may be a response to a longer vision than that
1 of the proponents of a C-SELM system; the public may feel that the
. achievement of a regional wastewater management system would be a
*
I step forward for technology transfer and two steps backward £pr
representative government.
* It is acknowledge that the implementation of any wastewater
1 management system for the combined C-SELM area, regardless of the
treatment method employed, would encounter the difficulty of
I winning public acceptance of the regional authority required to
manage any such system. However, this difficulty is likely to be
" more stifling for a land disposal system. The need for some kind
Iof regional wastewater management authority is common to all three
'
treatment methods—biological, physical-chemical, and land disposal—
1 '
| but the land disposal method is relatively unique from the standpoint
. of its space requirements and consequent impact upon land use and
human activity. For this reason, the incidental land use and human
I effects of the land disposal method may be burdensome enough to
I
-------
himlr-r it fron scaling public opposition to the creation of a regional
v.'asLcu'aler r;.inapc:;:c>nt authority.
Notwithstanding the. difficulty of creating a regional wastewater
r,i;ina;;L>nent authority for any type of treatment system, the particular
difficulty of winning public support for implementation of a land
disposal system is footnoted by the experience of Muskegon County.
Active citizen support for that County's land disposal system was
si ,;iii f i cant by its absence. As previously discussed, the Muskegon
Project achieved a "broad base" of support among various influential
decision-makers who had a "vested interest" in the success of the
project. This "broad base" of support is distinguishable from the
active support of lay citizens, which was never a characteristic of
the Muskegon Project. In fact, the proponents of the Muskegcn
Project realized that there was no need for active citizen support
if they could achieve a broad base of support among "influentials."
Accordingly, their implementation strategy was to concentrate upon
winning the support of "influentials" and to hastily neutralize any
active citizen opposition to the project. When active citizen
opposition did raise its head, it was quashed by court action.
The lacking citizen support for the land disposal system in
Muskegon County fails to provide evidence that a C-SELM land
disposal system would receive the kind of citizen support needed
to counteract public resistance to the establishment of a regional
wastewater management authority.
2* Absent evidence of system performance.
The performance of Muskegon County's land disposal system has not
yet been tested in operation. There is therefore no evidence of the
-------
12
performance of such a large scale system in critical areas such as
the: following: iinpjct upon the quality of surface and groundwaters ;
porf on:, nice of v.irJous system con'.ponents , e.g., waste, removal
efficiencies and the physical performance, and operating and mainte-
nance costs of irrigation and drainage facilities; agricultural
productivity, soils effects and economic benefits of wastewater
irrigation; and the social, environmental and economic impact of
the project upon the surrounding community.
The fact that the design for the Muskegon Project x^as deemed
"feasible" indicates a technological judgement on the part of EPA,
among other governmental bodies, that any anticipated problems could
be resolved through the application of existing technology without a
major restructuring of the project concept. To determine the .actual
operational effectiveness of the system — as opposed to its design
feasibility — EPA has required as a condition of its research and
.
demonstration grant to Muskegon County that evaluation studies be
performed over three- to five-year periods in the four critical
areas of project performance enumerated above. (The effect of the
Muskegon system upon land use is largely excluded from these studies.)
Once these evaluative studies have generated performance data on the
impact of the system upon water, crops and soils, there will then be
an opportunity to observe whether the management of the system, an
Independently important variable, is capable of resolving any problems
revealed by this particular accumulation of performance data. It is
presumed, therefore, that, when the Muskegon land disposal system
becomes fully operational and the required evaluative studies have
been performed, it will be possible to determine whether the adjudged
-------
-------
"feasibility" of the design for the system is borne out by the
perfoimance of that system. However, the practical validity of
tin: al'iu.',L.! ;\visibility of the .system design is largely dependent
upon two factors: (1) whether EPA has successfully anticipated
nil of the conceivable problems which might befall the system; and
(2) whether the management of the system is effectively and demon-
stratively able to resolve any uncovered problems x^ithout a major
restructuring of the project concent, without inflating the
operational or capital cost of the system beyond the fiscal
ability of the county, or without otherwise creating an unreason-
able adverse impact upon the surrounding community. ;
Aside from determining whether EPA's financial and organiza-
tional commitment to the Muskegon Project was a sound investment,
the larger purpose of the evaluative studies which EPA has required
for the Muskegon Project is to develop procedures and information
which may be applied in the consideration of a similar system for
other communities. However, an important caveat should be attached
to the applicability of performance data on the Muskegon system to
proposals for land disposal systems elsewhere: depending upon the
insights offered by that data, it may not provide evidence which is
applicable to the consideration of a land disposal system having a
different design or larger scale. Because the land disposal alter-
natives proposed for a C-SELM system represent a quantum leap from i
the scale of the Muskegon Project, it is highly questionable that !
• . -^ . |
performance data on the Muskegon system will be applicable .to-a I
I
C-SELM system. In any case, performance data on the full scale .
operation of the Muskegon system will not be forthcoming for several
-------
127
years. It is, therefore, premature to force consideration of pro-
po:;;ilfi for a land disposal system on the scale of the. C-SELM area,
u::ich would serve an estimated waste treatment demand in the year
?0?0 for 4,0JO r.illion gallons per day (m^d) , requirins 900,000
acres of land, as compared with the 43.4 mgd design flow capacity
and 10,000 acre requirement of the Muskegon system.
3• Absent evidence of ability and will to achieve supportive land
ur.e p 1 : nn in':.
Without evidence on the performance of the Muskegon Project it
becomes particularly striking that neither is their evidence of
Muskegon's ability and will to plan for the land use and other
secondary effects of the County's land disposal system. The amount
of deliberate planned consideration which the Muskegon Plan gives
to land use and other factors besides those dealing with water
resource management is quite limited. More importantly, the
County has thus far not conducted planning in conjunction with
the land disposal project to provide beneficial uses for the land
which has been, or will be, vacated or altered in use by the
implementation of the Muskegon Plan. In fact, the County has not
carried out any real comprehensive or land use planning to prepare
for the land impact of the land disposal system. This failure has
occurred in spite of the strong recommendation of the Environmental
Impact Statement for the Muskegon Project that the County consider
the inclusion of recreational and open space areas in planning uses
for all land embraced by the project. (An Environmental Impact
Statement, in accordance with the Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
can only recommend that a proposed action be "considered.") Thus,
-------
12S
the experience of Muske^on County in implementing tlic largest scale
land di:;po:;,il ;:y:-.tem in the United States is significant by its
failure to (.}<.•: •Mi.-.tre.te the ability and will of a community to carry
out coi .pi chenni ve or land use planning in conjunction with a land
disposal system in order to prepare for, and not squander, the
land use benefits, such as functional "green belts," which have
been ascribed to the system and in order to prepare against the
potential adverse land use impact of such a system.
-------
129
COUCLUSIO:]; That the C-SELM Study should, therefore, be
BAS':s:
The conclusion th.it the C-SELM Study should be terminated is
drawn on the basis of the conclusions and supportive statements
articulated above. To recapitulate those assessments, our first
conclusion v;as that the C-SELM Study as conducted by the Corps of
Fr.Tir.3crc, to encourage- the establishment of a land disposal system
is having a harmful effect upon land use and land use planning.
In support of that conclusion, we have observed that the C-SELM
Study:
has maintained a concern for the water resource at
the expense of the land resource;
*
that it imposes a need for supportive land use
planning which is beyond the- present capability
of local and areawide planning functions;
that it has exploited existing planning contro-
versies; and
• *
that it constitutes a pre-emption of comprehensive
planning .
Secondly, we concluded that the Corps of Engineers has demonstrated
a parsimonious concern for the land use effects of the land disposal
alternatives proposed in the C-SELM Study. This conclusion was derived
from three aspects of the conduct of the C-SELM Study:
-------
130
the intention to choose a wastewater management plan
on the lxu is of nuirket costs, which do not account
for the social utility of the land resource;
the limiting of participation in the C-SELM Study to
government jurisdictions which would be served by a
C-SELM wastewater management system, thereby excluding
from participation numerous jurisdictions whose land
would be impacted by a land disposal system; and
the failure of the Corps of Engineers to address the
land impact of a land disposal system.
Thirdly, we concluded that the Muskegon Project, as it has matured
to date,, fails to provide evidence that a larger scale land disposal-
system is desirable. This conclusion derives jointly from our assess-
ments of the Muskegon Project and of the conduct of the C-SELM Study.
In the face of the harmful effect of the C-SELM Study and its land
disposal alternatives upon land use and land use planning, the Muskegon
experience provides a conspicuous absence of mitigating evidence that a
C-SELM land disposal system would otherwise be desirable. This conclu-
sion is grounded in three aspects of the Muskegon experience:
its absent indication of the public acceptability of
a land disposal system;
its absent evidence of the performance of a larger
scale land disposal system; and
its absent evidence of the ability and will of a
community to achieve supportive land use planning for
a land disposal system.
-------
131
Therefore, on the basis of these conclusions with respect to
the conJucl of tlic C-SELM Study and the experience of the Muskegon
J'rojfct, \:c sujuiit tiuit the C-SJJLM Study sliould be terminated.
-------
132
RKCO:IME:;DATIO:;S
On the basis of the preceding analysis and examination,
we hereby recommend the following:
That UFA employ its "good offices" to encourage the
termiridtion of the C-SELM Study;
That EPA adopt ar^d make known to the public a definitive
official position on the land disposal method of wastewater
treatment, once a complete performance evaluation of the
Muskegon Project has been made3 including a full evaluation
>
of the Muskegon County system's land impact;
That EPA increase staff allocation "in the Region V Office to
provide for a full-time monitor of the Muskegon Project and
to provide for more extensive involvement in wastewater
management projects being carried out by the Army Corps
of Engineers;
That EPA establish requirements jointly with the Department
of Housing and Urban Development stipulating that land use
planning shall be carried out prior to or concurrent with
all wastewater management projects, especially those involving
i
land disposal alternatives3 and that the Agency strictly
i
abide by such requirements; '
-------
That EPA extend the citizen participation requirements
ad>:ilnic,J.~rativcly established for .4-55 "clearinghouses"
by rcquirin'j J':::oncki\itLon of citizen involvement from
* all segments of a corriKmity in all planning processes
•j connected with EPA functions and responsibilities^ in
} metropolitan ac, well as non-metropolitan areas, as a
\
condition for release of EPA-administered funds;
~J
That EPA articulate a firm and sincere land resource policy
i
•* as a first step towards developing program responsibility
1 for the protection and enhancement of the land resource;
j That EPA expand the scope and depth of its land use comments
j on Environmental Impact Statements and that project monitors
for EPA-funded projects., among whom land use specialists
1 should be included3 follow-up impact statement comments to
determine whether those projects are following impact
J ' statement recommendations and to encourage that such
1 recommendations be carried out;
I That EPA continue in its_ support for local and areaaide planning;
-------
134
'i'hat, in furtherance of the above recommendationsy EPA Regional
...y.V ,-
-------
135
J
J
J
J,
J*
J
J
MOTHS
1
Jaricr. Clmj'.ow, Mu-^kf'<'.on_,__MJ£\] j T-'in:_ The I'.voUifi on
of ;i ]..-!'•<•_ l\>nr (Chicn;;o: The University 01" Chicago, 1939).
*
2
* . Muskcgon County Metropolitan Planning Commission,
Existing Land Use and Development Factors (December, 1969).
1 3
Ibid.
i
1 4
George Davis and Allison Dunham, An Analysis of the
i Mu--ko~on County, Michiran Wastewater Management Project
(Chicago: Ihe University oi Chicago, 1972).
5
Ibid.
6
Ibid.
7
JJohn R. Schaeffer and Associates, Water Resources
Policy Study Program for Muskegon County, Michigan (Wheaton,
Illinois: November 1968).
j
8
Davis and Dunham, op. cit.
9
Ibid.
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid.
12
Ibid.
13
Ibid.
-------
f*
------- |