-------

-------
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*

-------