WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES • 16110 DAJ 12/70
       Benefits of Water Quality
             Enhancement
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY • WATER QUALITY OFFICE

-------
         WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES
The ¥ater Pollution Control Research Reports describe
the results and progress in the control and abatement
of pollution in our Nation's waters.  They provide a
central source of information on the research, develop-
ment, and demonstration activities in the Environmental
Protection Agency, Water Quality Office, through inhouse
research and grants and contracts with Federal, State,
and local agencies, research institutions, and industrial
organizations.

Inquiries pertaining to Water Pollution Control Research
Reports should be directed to the Head, Project Reports
System, Office of Research and Development, Environmental
Protection Agency, Water Quality Office, Washington, B.C.
202*1-2.

-------
       Benefits of Water Quality  Enhancement
                              by
              Department of Civil Engineering
                   Syracuse University
                Syracuse, Mew York   13210
                           for the

               ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY
                      Project #16110 DAJ
                         December 1970
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Oflicc. Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.75
                         Stock Number 5501-0139

-------
               EPA Review Notice
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental
Protection Agency and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents neces-
sarily reflect the views and policies of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade
names or commercial  products constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use.

-------
                             ABSTRACT


     This research was carried out over a three year period  ending
September 1, 1970.  During the first two years  two related subject
areas were studied, The Development of a Pollution Index for Benefit
Analys is and Measurements  of the Total Dollar  Benefit  of Water
Pol 1uti on Control.  During the final year the Benefi ts  of Water
Quality Enhancement were studied further in order to implement  pol-
lution abatement at a local level of government.   These three
separate but related aspects of the overall project are included  in
this Final Report and described as Part A,  B and C.

     PART A contains a discussion of the past practices and  recent
trends in water pollution control as it relates to water quality.
Special  consideration is given to the difficulties with both single
item and multiple item water quality criteria.   A new Pol 1uti on Index
is proposed to measure the relative pollution when multiple  items of
water quality are considered.   The Pollution Index is specific  for
one of three classifications cf water use; human contact, indirect
contact, and remote contact.  An Overall Pol 1ution Index is  also
proposed as a weighted average of the three Pollution Indices;  the
weight of each being related to the relative type use of the water-
course.

     In Part B the dollar benefit of a lake or  stream at a given
water quality is determined by listing all  uses which both affect
and are affected by water quality, by valuing each use  individually,
and by summing the resultant values.  The values of beneficial  uses
are measured by the willingness to pay of the  user or an evaluation
of benefits derived from avoiding payment.   The value of these  uses  is
estimated by taking surveys of the users at the lake or stream.  The
annual demand and unit benefit are determined  for each  use and  the
product gives total annual benefits for that use.  Total annual dollar
benefit at a given water quality is the sum of  these benefits for each
use.  Annual social benefit is measured at  existing water quality and
estimated at an improved water quality.  This estimate  is made  by com-
parison of user demand at lakes and streams with existing high  water
quality or by projection of latent user demand.  The difference in  the
benefits at two different water qualities gives net annual social
benefit which is the estimated annual increase  or decrease  in value  of
a  lake or stream which a corresponding increase or decrease  in  water
quality.  Onondaga Lake at Syracuse, New York  is used as an  example.
An economic analysis using this procedure produces a net social benefit
of k.k million dollars annually if Onondaga Lake water  quality  were
improved to support swimming,  sport fishing, municipal  water supply
and higher-valued shoreline land uses.

-------
      In Part C a study was undertaken of a methodology for water
pollution abatement administration at the local  or regional level,
using Onondaga Lake, N. Y. as an example.  Previous investigations
regarding the sale of water pollution assimilative capacity, dollar
benefits from pollution abatement, and pollution index were related
in such a manner so as to establish a discharge price for polluting
materials based on an increasing price with diminishing resources.
The amounts to be sold are established by the governing board.  Each
discharger is given the opportunity to purchase some discharge pri-
vileges, but must at some time make the decision to remove contamin-
ants  rather than discharge them.  Prices are established to make
the purchase of discharge privileges prohibitive at the point where
water quality becomes questionable for a stated objective.

     The investigation included a critical review of current abate-
ment procedures as well as the results of an attempt to have a
regional river basin board utilize the methodology on a trial  basis.
Although the basin board did not actually utilize the methodology,
for reasons explained in the report, the meetings with the board
did establish the desirability of resource sales as a means of pol-
lution abatement.

     The overall report was submitted in ful f i 1 Iment of Grant No.
WD-01089-01 under the sponsorship of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, subsequently Grant No.  16110 DAJ under the
Federal Water Quality Administration, and presently under the
Environmental Protection Agency.
                               IV

-------
                                  CONTENTS

                                                              Page

Part A.  POLLUTION INDEX FOR BENEFIT ANALYSIS                    1
     I   Conclusions                                             3
    I I   Recommendations                                         5
   III   Intreduction                                            7
    IV  Water Quality Expressions  in Water  Pollution
        Control Problems                                        9
     V  A Proposal of Pollution Index                           13
    VI   Applications of the Proposed Indices                     25
   VI I   Acknowledgement                                         35
  VIII   References                                              37
Part B.  MEASUREMENT OF THE TOTAL  DOLLAR BENEFIT  OF WATER
         POLLUTION CONTROL                                      39
     I   Conclusions                                             41
    II   Recommendations                                         43
   I I I   Introduction                                            45
    IV  Total Annual Social Benefit at a Particular Level
        of Water Quality                                        49
     V  Recreation Use Survey                                   51
    VI  Withdrawal Water Use Survey                              63
   VII  Wastewater Disposal Use Survey                          74
  VIII  Bordering Land Use Survey                               83
    IX  In-Stream Water Use Survey                              95
     X  Measurement of the Total Dollar Benefit of Water
        Pollution Control - An Example - Onondaga Lake,
        Onondaga County, New York                               99
    XI  Acknowledgement                                         137
   XII  References                                              139
Part C. BENEFITS OF WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT                   145
      I  Conclusions                                             1^7
    I I  Recommendations                                         153
    I I I  Introduction                                            155
    IV  Administering  the Sale of Assimilative Capacity         157
     V  A Test Case                                             169
    VI  Acknowledgements                                        181
   VII  References                                              183
  VI I I  Appendix                                                187

-------
                             LIST OF FIGURES

Part A                                                         Page

     1.  Mean (C./L..) vs Max.(C./L..)                           17

     2.  An Example of Data Distribution for Human Contact Use  18

     3.  Mean (C./L..) vs Max. (C./L..)                         17

     k.  Effect of Increasing Concentration of Pollutant on the
         Damage Costs                                           21
Part B
     1.  Value of Water Quality Control for a Hypothetical
         Lake                                                   50

     2.  Location of Onondaga Lake, Fayettevi1le, Green Lake,
         and Skaneateles Lake in Onondaga County, New York      100

     3.  Characteristics of Land Bordering Onondaga Lake        102

     ^».  Annual Social Benefit for Onondaga Lake at Existing
         Water Quality and at High Water Quality                1 J>k
Part C

     1.  Unit Price Calculation                                 159

-------
                               LIST OF TABLES

Part A                                                         Page
     1   Quality Expression  Methods  of a Pollution
         Control Program                                        12
    II   Permissible  Quality Levels  for Human Contact Water
         Use                                                    26
   III   Permissible  Quality Levels  for Indirect Contact Use     27
    IV   Permissible  Quality Levels  for Remote Contact Use       28
     V   Water Quality  in  Oneida  Lake                            29
    VI   Calculation  of Index,  PI,  for Oneida Lake               30
   VII   Water Pollution of  Surface  Water  Resources  in New York
         State Expressed by  Pollution  Indices                    31
Part B
     I   Categories of  Beneficial Water Uses                     kl
    II   Percent of U.S. adults engaging often, and  a few times,
         in selected  outdoor activities, by  location of  residence
         of the person, 1959-60                                  52
   III   Outdoor Recreation  Activities Most  Important in
         Association  with  Water and  Water  Quality                53
    IV   Concentric Mileage  Zones of Visitor Origin About
         Water Body                                              55
     V   Water Based  Recreation Uses                            57
    VI   The Extent of  Water Treatment                        6^-69
   VII   Checklist of the  Extent  of  Wastewater Treatment       76-79
  VIM   Classifications and Definitions of Types of Real      85-88
         Property
    IX   Assessed Property Values                                89
     X   1968 Equalization Rates  for Onondaga County, New York  90
    XI   Calculation  of Shoreline Property Benefits              92
   XII   Recreation Benefits of Onondaga Lake at Existing
         Water Quality                                           105
  XIII   Onondaga Lake  Annual Attendance for Water-Related
         Activities                                              106
   XIV   License Plate  Survey of  the Origin of Visitors  to
         Onondaga Lake  Park  and Green  Lakes State Park           108
    XV   Attendance Distribution  by  Zone at Onondaga Lake
         Park and Green Lakes State  Park                         109
   XVI   Weighted Average  Base  Cost  per Visit for Water-Oriented
         Recreation Uses at  Onondaga Lake  Park and Green Lakes
         State Park                                              110
  XVII   Travel  Associated Costs  per Visit                      111
 XVIII   Unit Recreation Damand  for  Green Lakes State Park,
         Fayettevi lie,  New York                                  1H
                                      vii

-------
                           LIST OF TABLES (Cont.)
   XIX   Recreation Benefits of Onondaga Lake at Green Lake
         Water Quality                                          115
    XX   Demand for Selected Water-Oriented Recreational
         Activities, Lake Ontario Basin, I960 (Day and Over-
         night or Weekend Sectors)                               118

   XXI   Potential Sport Fishing Benefits at Onondaga Lake
         at High Water Qua!ity                                  119

  XXII   Chemical  Characteristics of Representative New York
         Lakes                                                  121

 XXIII   Estimated Construction Costs for Onondaga Lake Waste
         Treatment Facilities                                   125
  XXIV   Onondaga Lake Bordering Property Value Benefits  at
         Existing Water Quality                                 126
   XXV   Skaneateles Lake Ratio of Shoreline Property Values
         to Non-shoreline Property  Values                       129
  XXVI   Onondaga Lake Bordering Property Value Benefits  at
         Skaneateles Lake Water Quality                         130
 XXVII   Quantities of Material Dredged from the Turning  Basin
         at the Syracuse Barge Canal  Terminal,  Solar Street,
         Syracuse, New York                                     132
Part C
     I    Onondaga Lake Discharges                                157
    II    Calculation of Unit Prices                              161
    I I    Dischargers Costs                                       162
    IV    Calculation of Increased  Unit Prices                    163
                                        vm

-------
PART A - POLLUTION INDEX FOR BENEFIT ANALYSIS
                 Developed by
    Nelson L.  Nemerow and Hisashi  Sumitomo
                     -1-

-------
                            SECTION  I


                           CONCLUSIONS
1.   A pollution index can  be  developed  for specific water uses
    when multiple items  of water  quality  are  considered.

2.   The pollution index  is specific  for one of  three classifica-
    tions of water use;  human contact,  indirect contact, and
    remote contact.

3.   An overall  pollution index can be developed as a weighted
    average of the three specific indices, the  weight of each
    being related to the relative type  use of the watercourse.
                               -3-

-------
                            SECTION I 1
                         RECOMMENDATIONS
     In this paper, fundamental water quality expression methods
are discussed for pollution control  problems.  Because of the
recent increasing tendency to control pollution in a regional
unit, suitable quality expression methods for pollution should
be developed.  In addition, benefits of pollution control  are
becoming increasingly important in cost analysis.  Multiple items
of water qualities are required for the benefit analysis of pol-
lution.  Therefore, in this paper, a Pollution Index method is
proposed to cope with the regional benefit analysis of pollution.
This type of simple overall expression of water quality may be useful
for administrative purposes and for communication with the public
regarding pollution control.

     The relative expressions of the multiple items of water qualities
with the respective permissible levels for a use are proposed in
this paper as the principal idea of the  Index method.  A practical
method for computing the Index is also proposed for future develop-
ment of this kind of concept  for expressing quality of pollution.
However, the procedures outlined are not proposed as a final product
of this concept, but rather as a starting point from which refine-
ments can be added through experiences.

     The authors recognize that many assumptions and prejudgements
have been made in developing  the technique of computing a Pollution
Index.   The authors also recognize the limitations of the use of
the Pollution Index and that  other methods may be used to arrive  at
other measures of the degree  of contamination.  This is but one approach
toward integrating the level  of contamination of various ingredients
into a single number describing the overall degree of pollution.
                                -5-

-------
                           SECTION  I I I
                           INTRODUCTION
     The desire to solve water pollution  control  problems  on  a
nationwide scale resulted in passage of the  Water Quality  Act of
1965.  The establishment of Water Quality Standards  for  Inter-
state water is the most important part  of the  Act influencing the
activities of pollution control.   Measurement  and expression  of
a polluted water quality are important  factors in controlling pollu-
tion.  At present, water quality  is  usually  expressed  by several
items such as BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand), DO (Dissolved  Oxygen),
Coliform bacteria count, and so on.   However,  'pollution'  and 'a
polluted water1 are relative terms,  and expressions to  describe them
have been arbitrarily chosen in each instance. These  expressions
chosen to differentiate a polluted water from  a cleanwater have
been mainly based on the characteristics  of  the water  uses.   As
an example, the item of fecal  coliform  count is selected for  a
regional recreational use to express one form  of  a pollution. On
the other hand, the items of pH,  hardness, suspended solids,  copper,
iron and manganese concentrations have  been  selected for a textile
industry.  Even though agreement  may be reached on the proper ex-
pression of pollution, persons may not  agree on the  critical  values
of those expressions.

     More recently, and especially in regional systems, benefits  of
pollution control and damages  of  pollution are being considered.
Regional rather than local  or separate  individual control  systems has
great merit.   A major characteristic of the  regional system is that
a region is often composed of many different kinds of  waste discharges
and water uses.  Therefore, the most basic and decisive problem  is
how to quantify pollution by an all-inclusive  common measurement  of  all
contaminants  for the society affected by it.  This is  made difficult
because of the many existing different  quantification  methods of
pollution as  previously mentioned.  Up  to now, in regional cases, one
representative item such as BOD or DO has often been selected as  an
overall common expression of pollution  neglecting the  effects of  the
other items of water qualities, or assuming that those  effects may be
substituted by the representative item.  For example,  in New  York
State the only water quality which has  specific minimum  levels  is
dissolved oxygen.  It is also common to use  multiple items of water
qualities to maintain a minimum water quality  level.   These single
item and multiple item common expressions of pollution are not always
satisfactory.  A single item cannot  always serve  as  a  substitute  for
other important items especially  in  a large  regional problem in which
many kinds of water uses coexist; and also in  the multiple item  method,
the quantified values are often expressed as discrete  values  rather
than useful moving plots of pollution characteristics. The mutual
relations of those multiple items of water quality such  as pH,  BOD,  and
DO are also unclear at this stage.  Therefore  it  is  most  urgent  that a
simple, reasonable, and useful method be developed for expressing
                             -7-

-------
quality of polluted water.   The major purpose  of this  paper  is
the development of one such  common quality  expression  for  relative
states of pollution of a watercourse (Nemerow,  1967).
                                -8-

-------
                            SECTION IV

  WATER QUALITY EXPRESSIONS IN WATER POLLUTION  CONTROL  PROBLEMS


     Pollution control problems may be classified quite generally
into two groups based on the purpose of the problem itself.   In  one
group, pollution control is concerned with a single item of water
quality, and in the other croup, multiple items  of water qualities
are used.  For instance, a specific control problem of  either iron,
color, or temperature in water supply is an example of  the  first group.
On the other hand, a problem of the determination whether a water  is
suitable for swimming requires the use of multiple items such as coli-
form bacteria, pH, color, and turbidity.  Most  of the problems,
strictly speaking, are classified into the second group in which it
is difficult to express an absolute measure of  pollution.  But,  some
problems in this group can often be transfered  into the first group  in
practice.  One representative item is often selected from the multiple
items.  Stream quality description by DO sag curve and  the  decision of
BOD removal efficiency at sewage treatment plants are typical examples
of the transfer.  !n the above case, the concentration  of total  bio-
degradable organic matter is used as an index of pollution, neglecting
the other items of qualities, and the purpose of sewage treatment  is
practically defined as a removal of the organic matter  expressed as
BOD.

     However, when considering a specific water use, such simplification
as the above example is not realistic, since water quality  must  satisfy
other contaminant criteria simultaneously.  When water  is used for
swimming and cooling, for example, multiple items such  as coliform
bacteria, temperature, pH,  and so on should be  used rather  than  a general
expression of pollution such as BOD.  Single item quality control  (such
as BOD) can only be used when the receiving water is not being used
for a specific purpose.  In certain cases where data are incomplete or
water use is not highly specialized, single item quality control may  still
be useful.  For these cases, the values expressed for water quality
can be employed as a measure of pollution without any special problems.
In the second group, a direct expression of all the multiple  items
concerned could be employed as a measure of pollution,  if discrete
values can measure pollution for the existing expression of a minimum
quality level, and if each item is employed quite independently  among
multiple items themselves.   Quality standards for classified  waters
in New York State such as a range between 6.5 to 8.5 in pH  and k.Q to
5.0 in DO are examples of discrete and independent expressions of
pollution using multiple items.  It should be emphasized here that
pollution can be quantified quite reasonably by the existing  quality
expression methods in many cases as shown  in the above.  In  these instances,
additional discussions of a general expression  method of pollution are
not requi red.

     Maximum treatment efficiency and/or minimum treatment  cost  have
                                 -9-

-------
 been  mainly  used  to control pollution.  Pollution control problems
 have  been  considered as problems  in the first group, most of which
 are transferred  from the  second group.  Therefore, one of the major
 items such as  BOD, COD, or DO has been  reasonably employed for
 those cases  as a  genera]  expression of pollution.  More  recently, in
 regional problems, uses of the water body  into which the treated wastes
 are discharged are usually taken  into account to arrive at an optimum
 control method changing from the minimization of the treatment costs
 to some sort of maximization of the total  benefits of water uses in an
 entire  region  including the treatment costs as negative benefits.  The
 authors believe that in the discussion of  the many kinds of regional
 uses  of a  receiving water, the use of multiple item expression of
 pollution  is both useful  and necessary.

      A brief procedure to select the appropriate water quality
 expression method in water pollution control problems is suggested
 as follows:

      1.  The major purpose of the pollution control and the
         definition of the pollution should be clarified, and the
         problem should be classified into one of two groups,
         based on single  or multiple water quality items concerned.
         (Even after the  classification, the possible transfer from
         the multiple item group to the single item group must be
         cons idered.)

      2.  The scale of the control  problem  should be checked to deter-
         mine whether it  is local  or regional.

      3.  Determine whether the pollution control  objective involves
         the uses of  the  receiving water or is only concerned with the
         waste treatment.

     The proper quality expression method can now be determined for
each control  problem  by using Table - 1, from which the water pollution
control problems can  be generally defined as follows:

      1.  For local and  individual  problems, the existing methods of
         single item  or multiple discrete  items are applicable.

     2.  For regional  problems,  the quality expressions suggested are
         as fol1ows:

         a)  The existing expression using a representative item such
         as BOD or DO is advantageous,  if only treatments are discussed
         for pollution  control  without consideration of the individual
         uses of the  water body.   (e.g.  Cost analysis of regional
         waste treatment.)

         b)  A new expression  using multiple items  should be developed,
         if the treatments are  discussed,  considering the effects of
                                    -10-

-------
the treatments for the individual uses of the receiving
water.  (e.g. Benefit analysis of a regional waste treatment.)

c)  The existing expression by multiple items is useful
for a discrete quality expression of a pollution, (e.g. Stream
quality standards expressed using multiple items.)
                        -11-

-------
                      Table-T.     duality  Expression  Methods  of  a  Pollution  for Pollution Control Problems
NT^-*-^...^ Number of items
N. ^"^"---^concerned with the
N. ^~"~~^«^^^ problem
N. Size of ^"^-->-^^^
N. the problem ^~~~--— ^.^
Purpose ^^_^^
of the ^^"""""--^
problem ^~~"~^^--
Discussions of discharges
(Removal efficiency and cost
of waste treatment)
e.g. Cost and efficiency
ana lys i s
Discussions of discharges and
uses of the receiving water.
("Effects and damages of waste
treatment)
e.g. Benefit Analysis
S i ngle
Local
j*
Trad.
ex: (BOD
removal , etc. )
J-
Trad.
ex! (Toxic ion
removal , Temp-
erature increas
etc.)
Regional
Trad.
ex! TOO sag
curve , etc. )
Trad.
ex: (Spread of
disease germ,
e, toxic ion removal,
etc.)
Mul ti pie
Local
Trad. (Ind)
Trad. (Ind.)
Regional
j-
Trad. (Ind)
or
.i,
1 ndex
.t.
'Trad. (Disc.)
and
.L
1 ndex
I

CO
          -Note:  Trad.        = Traditional  expression  by  the  existing water  quality expression method.
                 Trad.(Ind.)  = Independent  expression  of  each item using  the existing water quality expression method,
                 Trad.(Disc.)= Discrete value  expression  by  traditional expression such as stream standards.
                 Index       = A new continuous  quantification  method of  a pollution considering multiple  items of
                               water quali t ies.

-------
                            SECTION V

                  A PROPOSAL OF POLLUTION INDEX


     A new quality expression method of pollution is required
especially for regional benefit analysis of pollution control,
as mentioned in the previous section.  On a regional basis,  all
effects of a pollutant on the uses should be taken into account
at the same time to evaluate total damages of the pollution.   In
the rest of this section a common and overall measuring unit  of
pollution will be discussed, considering overall  effects of  the
multiple items of pollutants for specific uses.

     An expression of pollution quality will be developed by  a
single value for each major classified water use, which is ar-
bitral ly referred to as 'PI1.   An overall expression of pollution
quality for all uses will be derived from these Index values.
Certain precision is sacrificed in developing an  Overall Index
value.  But, such an overall quality expression of pollution  is
expected to be useful for many  practical purposes.  For example,
it may offer means for measuring pollution to be  used for adminis-
trative purpose and as communication with the public (Morton, 1965) •

Basic Consideration for the Index

     The primal problem in developing the Index is how to integrate
the independent multiple items  of pollutants in a water into a
common expression.  There is often little correlation between the
significance as well as the dimension of each pollutant:  For instance,
1,000 (MPN/100 ml) in coliform count, 6 (mg/l)  in DO, and 80  (°F) in
temperature.  Each value may be compared only with the same  item of
quality.   When those values are related to some kind of standard
values of the respective items  such as coliform number of 500/lOOml,
DO of 5 mg/l, and temperature of 50 F, the relative value can be
expressed as 2.0 (1000/500 = 2.0), 1.2 (6/5 - 1.2), and 1.6  (80/50 =
1.6)  respectively, as non-dimensional relative valaes.

     It is possible to derive aneaningful, comparable and relative
value, if reasonable standard values are chosen.   If these standard
values are the permissible quality levels, the PI can be defined as
a truly relative term.  The permissible pollutant level at a location
of a water use is recommended here as the standard value for the Index
development.  An Index for a major specific water use will be developed
first, and then the overall Index, which is a common measure of  a
pollution for all uses, will be discussed.

     When the multiple items of water qualities are expressed as C.'s
and the permissible levels of the respective items for a use are
expressed as L..'s, the Pollution Index for the use, j, PI may be
expressed as a'-function of the  relative values,  (C./L..)'s.   Here, i
is the number of the i-th item of water quality and j is the number  of
the j-th  water use.
                               -13-

-------
            PI  = A function  of  (  (C./L..)'s  )  ......... (1)
             or- f (  Cyi,., C2/2Ji  C3/L3j,  ...  Cyi,.)
                  ( i  1,  2,  3,  ----  i ,  ..  1.
                    j  1 ,  2 ,  3 ,  ----  j ,  . .  J .  )
 This  approach  is  similar to that  used  in  describing  toxicity of
 multiple  items  of toxic  materials.   When  several  toxic materials
 (T, ,  T    T,,  ....  ) coexist in a water,  it  is suggested that
 the  total  toxicity may be evaluated  by  the  next  relation, applying
 the  respective  permissible  levels  (  TL.),  (TL_) ,  (TL, ),..).
               Total  toxicity = Tj/dLj) + T2/(TL2) + J
               +  ......  (2)
 Development of the Pollution  Index
     The  Index may be expressed by the  relative value (C./L..)'s
 as  shown  in the relation  (l).  Each value of  (C./L..) shows the
 relative  pollution contributed by the single  item.  A value of
 1.0  is the critical value  for each (C./L..).  Values greater than
 1.0  signify a critical condition under which  a proper treatment is
 necessary for the water use.  The major problem here is visualizing
 how  to get an Index value  from the multiple relative values.  Theore-
 tically speaking, there is  no absolute solution among the numerous possible
 methods.  However, we propose a reasonable method for an overall
 expression of pollution.  The arithmetic average value of all the cal-
 culated (C./L..)  values nay be recommended as  one of the important para-
 meters for the PI..  Th is parameter both considers all contaminants and
 is  influenced by the extreme values as well.
     For example, when the quality of a water is expressed as BOD
 (C . ) as 10mg/l ,  coliform bacteria (C?) as 1,300/lOOml, and hardness
 (C_) as 80 mg/1 ,  and their permissible  levels for a use j are given
as BOD (L..)  as  20mg/l , coliform (L  ) as 1,000/lOOml, and hardness
 (L.,.) as  lOOmg/1 ,  then the (C./L..)  values are expressed as follows:
 (C]/Lr)  = 0.5,  (C2,/2.) = 1.3, and (C3/L3.) = 0.8.  The average
value of the above three values is about 0.9 which may generally indi-
cate that the water is just under the critical condition for the use
j with no treatment of the water.   However, the average value may not
satisfactorily measure pollution,  because the necessity of water

-------
treatment for a use is often determined by the maximum value of
the (C./L..) values rather than the  average value.   Even if the
mean value  is very small, say under 1.0, the water cannot be
used for use j without treatment, if one of (C./L..)  values is
over 1.0.  As shown in the above example in which the mean value
(0.9) is under 1.0, the water should be treated for the use, be-
cause one item, coliform bacteria, is over the permissible level,
(C-/L . = 1.3).  Therefore, the maximum of the (C./L..) values is
proposed as another significant factor to be included in computation
of PI., in addition to the mean value.  The index may be expressed
using the maximum and mean values of the (C./L..) values, as shown
in the next relation.
     PI = f (max. of (C./L..)'s and mean of (C./L..)'s 	 (3)
The relation (3)  shows that the index PI, is expressed by the
maximum and mean values of (C./L..) values, althouth  the relation
among those three contaminants is still unknown.   One expression
of the relations  (3), when the abcissa is the maximum  (C./L..) and
the ordinate is the mean (C./L..), shows PI. value as a point some-
where in the space between the two axes as shown  in Fig. - 1.  It
may be generally agreed that the larger the values of maximum
(C./L..) and/or mean (C./L..), the more the water is  polluted.  There-
fore the length of the line from the origin to the Point PI.  in Fig. -
1  may be proposed as a significant factor to express  pollution.
Another factor (e) in Fig. - 1 is determined by the ratio of both
values of the maximum and mean (C./L..)'s.  But,  it is difficult
from a practical  standpoint to discuss the significance of the ratio
of the maximum and mean values of (C./L..)'s or to determine which  is
relatively more important in regard to pollution.  Many existing data
plotted according to the above graphic considerations are distributed
within a limited angle as seen in Fig. - 2.  It is proposed that the
general  quality expression of pollution for use j is  related  to the
length of a line between the origin and each point.  The length is
determined by the two values of the maximum and mean of  (C./L..) values
in Fig.  - 1.  In our computation of a pollution index, we propose to
                                   -15-

-------
 neglect  the  effect  of  the  of  the  angle  (cj>) .   The PI  for  use j,
 PI.,  is  measured  by the  lengths of  the  radii of  the concentric
 circles  as shown  in Fig. -  3-  Therefore,  the relation  (3)  is
 expressed  as  shown  in  Fig.  -  3 as follows:

       PI. =  m  max.  (C./L..) 2 + mean.  (C./L..)2 ..... (*»)


              Here,  m  =  the proportionality constant.
 A  critical condition to  determine the coefficient m is  recommended
 as  fol lows:

       PI. =  1.0, when  max.  (C./L..) = 1.0
         J                     '  U        ............. (5)
                 and mean.  (C. /!_..) = 1.0

 This means that the  Index  for use j is expressed as 1.0 when all
 items  of water qualities are just equal  to their respective per-
 missible levels for  the  use.  The relation (k) is as  follows under
 condi tions of (5) .
                              f »
m
                                               ^^..^BB^

                                               \|2
Therefore, PI.  is consequently proposed as follows, and the relation
among those tdree is expressed graphically as shown in Fig. - 3.

Overall  Pollution Index

     The Index  in equation  (6) is proposed only  for a particular
use j.   However, with some  modification,  it may  be employed for
some sort of grouped uses depending upon what kind of permissible
levels are employed as L..'s.  If the L..'s are  determined from
                         it              | j
the general, permissible  levels for swimming, boating, sport fishing,
and hiking, as  an example,  the Index PI ., may be defined as the
Pollution Index for outdoor  recreation use.  All existing water uses
in the region should be  taken into 
-------
        or
•J max.(Ci/Li A   -j-inean.(<

   max.(C./L, .}   4-inean.('
                                                              .... (6)
              k
                                 Pig.-l.
                     max.(Ci/Lij
             F
                                      point
                 Pig.-3.
mean.
                                              = (mean(
                                           ^
                                           -j-caxfC^/Li
                                 -17-

-------
          Pig,-2.    An example  of data  distribution
                     for human contact use
8.0
6.0
4.0
    mean,(Ci/Li
2.0
                                           _L
                                                           I
2.0
4.0
                          6,0
8.0    10.0    12.0    14.0
                                 -18-

-------
overall evaluation of this polluted water for the entire region may be
quantified primarily according to the Index value for drinking use.
However, the relative effects or importances of many regional  uses
mentioned above are not easily quantified.   One possible procedure
for establishing the overall  Index, PI,  is  proposed here.   This pro-
cedure assumes that the relative effects  are determinable  as  simple
constant numbers in an overall estimation.

     Judging from the fact that each PI.  value is a relative  value,
nondimensional, and the relative importance of each use may be
generally determined as a constant value, the overall  Index,  PI.,  is
proposed here as a weighted average value of all  the Pl.'s  as  follows:

  PI --J^
Here,

  w. = Weight coefficient (constant value)  which is determined by
   •^   the relative importances of the water use j  in the region
       or society.
     = Number of water uses.
Additional Consideration for Pollution Index

     Equation (6)  is proposed as a general  form of Pollution Index
for water use j.  However, some modifications are necessary in order
to complete the actual  Index.

     First of all, calculation of the (C./L..)  value will  be discussed
in more detail.  Every  item of water qualityMC.) does not always
increase in concentration as pollution increases.  But, on the other
hand, pH values vary up or down with pollution, generally  within a
range from 2 to 12.  Dissolved Oxygen (DO), for example, also usually
decreases within a limited range as pollution mounts.  In  addition,
it is common practice to specify the permissible level by  a range of
values such as pH from 6.k to 7-5.  In these special cases, (C./!_..)
value cannot be calculated in the same ways as  previously  suggested.
Some general practical  methods are recommended  for some of these
special cases.
                                -19-

-------
      a)   For  the  contaminant which  decreases  in  value as pollution
          increases, such  as transparency, DO, etc.

          The  theoretical  or practical maximum value  (C. ) of the
          (C.)  value should be determined, such as DO concentration

          as saturation.   The  (C./L..) value may  be replaced by

          (C./L..), where


          (C./L..) = (C.   -C.) /  (C.  - L  ) 	(9)
            i   ij       im   i       im     ; ;
 For example, when maximum DO = 8.0 and the maximum permissible DO
 level  is k.O, and the existing level  is 5.0.

         C/L. = (8.0 - 5.0) /  (8.0  - 4.0) = 3A = 0.75
     b)  For the contaminant qualities which have permissible levels
         ranging from L. ..  .   to L. .
                        ij  mm.      ij.max.

The mean value of the ranged levels, L.., should be calculated,


L  . . =  (L. .    .   + L. .      ) / 2 .......  (10)
   ij     ij.min.     ij. max.

and the  (C./L..) value may be substituted by the following;
 (C./L. .) =  (C. - L. .) /  L. .  .   or C. .      - L.
   i   ij       i     ij    (ij.min.      ij .max.     i j
                                                      (10)
For example, if the maximum pH allowable level is 8.5 and the range
is 6.5 to 8.5 when the existing pH 10.0, then

C.;L.. = (10.0-7.5) / (8.5-7.5) = 2.5/1.0 = 2.5
Since an increase or decrease in acids or alkalies causing a pH change
occurs on a logarithmic rather than an arithmetic scale, modification
of the procedure using a log value of C./L.. may be in order.  More
study of this point will be necessary since a log value will greatly
(and perhaps disproportionately) affect the magnitude of the computed
Index.  For example, instead of 2.5 in the above example the number whose
log is 2.5 is 316.

     The (C./L..) value indicates relative pollution as compared
to the respective permissible level.  At the same time, this value also
may express how damaging the water may be for use j, especially when
                                 -20-

-------
 the  value is  over 1.0.   To illustrate  the  possibility,  let  us
 compare the (C./L..)  values  of 0.9  and 1.1.   Both waters  may be
 considered as  almost  equally polluted  in a numerical  meaning.
 However,  this  is  not  always  valid  in practice,  because  a  treatment
 facility  is necessary only for the  latter  water.  Damages of the
 pollutants for uses which  may be expressed in the necessary expenses
 for  the facilities  are  generally quite significantly  different
 from the  numerically  expressed values  of 0.3  and  1.1.   Likewise, when
 (C./L..)  values of  5.0  and 10.0 are compared, the difference of  the
   i   i J
 damages caused by both  contaminants may not necessarily be  so  large
 as  the values  show.   The necessary  expenses for treatment are  not
 always proportional to  the quality  of  the  raw water but generally
 diminishes in  an  increasing  rate at PI  values over  1.0.  When  the
 proposed  Index is expected to reflect  the  relative damage of pollution
 rather than a  simple  numerical  expression  of  the  pollutants, some
 kind of calculation method of (C./!_..)  value  should be  considered  to
 express the relative  damage  such as shown  in  Fig. k.
Re 1 at i ve
damage  of a
pol1ut!on
 ($)
Fig. 4.
  Effect of increasing
  concentration of pollutant
  on the damage costs
                                         (C./L..)
                                           1   U
••Use whichever value  is nearer  to existing C. value,
                                 -21-

-------
 Assuming that  the  shape  of  the  curve  in  Fig.  -  4  is  valid,  the

 following calculation  method  is  proposed here  for  the substitution
 of (C./L..)  values.  The existing  data of  the  treatment  costs are

 used.   The following calculation of  (C./L..)  value  for each
 (C./L..)  may  be  substituted  for  the  (C./L..)  in  equation  (6)  for PI..

          When (C./L..) <  1.0,  (Cj/L..) =  (C./L..)
         When  (C./L.j) >  1.0,  (Cj/L?j) =  1.0 + p.log]()
                                                                     (11)
         Here,  p = a constant value

                   (As a standard value  for a  relative comparison,
                    5.0 is arbitrarily employed  for p value  in the
                    later applications of the  proposed Indices for
                    the existing pollutions.)

     Consideration is now given to the practical grouping of water
qualities  (i's) for the practical application  of the proposed  Indices.
 In  the previous discussions, PI. is proposed for each use j,  (j =
 I ,2,3, . . . j • • -n) , but the number'of water uses  (j's) are so numerous
 in  a society that a collective general grouping of water uses may be
used for practical purposes.  If a reasonable  common permissible level
can be determined for similar water uses, grouping of water uses may
be  possible and facilitate calculation of the  Pollution Indices.  The
following  three groups are recommended for separate Index expressions:

           1.  Human Contact Use (j =  1) which  included Drinking,
              Swimming, Beverage manufacturing, etc.

           2.  Indirect Contact Use (j = 2) which includes Fishing
              Industrial food preparation, Agricultural use, etc.

           3.  Remote Contact Use (j = 3) which included Industrial
              cooling, Aesthetic (picnicing, hiking and plain
              visitation), Navigation, etc.

The overall permissible levels (L..'s) should be determined for
the three grouped uses by applying the present permissible contamination
levels for each particular use.   An example of the determination of the
overall permissible levels for the grouped uses will be shown  in the
later part of this paper.

     The following contaminant items  (i's)  are recommended for the
                                    -22-

-------
Index discussions and computations,  although as  many items  of
water qualities as possible should be utilized.
        1 .   Temperature
        2.   Color
        3.   Turbidity
        k.   pH
        5.   Fecal coliform bacteria
        6.   Total dissolved solids
        7.   Suspended solids
 8.  Total  Nitrogen
 9.  Alkalinity
10.  Hardness
11.  Chloride
12.  Iron  and  Manganese
13.  Sulfate
}k.  Dissolved Oxygen
Suitable contaminant items should be determined after considering
the objective of the grouped use.  In addition, one must make or
have available water quality data including the data for the per-
missible levels.
                                 -23-

-------
                            SECTION VI
               APPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED INDICES

     As an application of the proposed  Indices,  pollution  of
the surface water resources in New York State will  be quantified
by the following procedure.  These resources  will  be evaluated for
human contact use (by PI,), and indirect contact use (By Pl~)  remote
contact use (by PI-), and also for general  overall  use (by PI).  The
                  j                                          •
permissible quality levels for the above three grouped uses, (L.,,
L.,,, and L.,), are determined as average permissible levels shown
in Tables II, Ml, and IV.  Permissible levels have been selected
after careful study of the FWPCA; Interim Report of the National
Technical Advisory Committee on Water Quality Criteria, June 30, 1967.
     An example calculation of the Pollution Index (for human
contact use, P'i) of Oneida Lake in New York  State is described in
detail.  First, the water qualities (2) of the Oneida Lake which
are shown in Table V are divided by the respective permissible
levels in Table II, and those calculations  are summarized  in Table
VI.  From the Table, Max. (C./L..) and  mean.  (C./L..) are  given as
2.9 and 0.87 respectively.
                                  -25-

-------
Table  -  II
     Permissible quality levels for Human Contact Water Use (J = 1)
     (F.W.P.C.A.,  1967)
                                           6  7
                                                           10
                           11  12  13    14
                 Temp Color Turb pH E.Coli TS SS NO   Alk Hard Chi Fe Sulf  DO
                   F  UNIT
100  ppm ppm ppm ppm  ppm ppm ppm ppm  ppm
 ml
Drinking Use
Beverage
Manufacturi ng
                   -  15
                                      5   500  - 45
                          250  0.35  250
Swimming Use
85 -
- 6.5 -200 ---+ + + -+-
8.3
                   -  10
                 85
                                                               250  0.35  -    -/
Average; L..
                                  '
     500   _
                                                      /    /    /   /   250 4.0*
Note:   1.  (Temp.)  Temperature 2. (Color); Color 3. (Turb.); Turbidity
       5.  (Coli);  Coliform bacteria count  6. (TS) ;  Total  Solids
       7.  (SS) ;  Total Suspended Sol i ds 8. (NO. )  Total Nitrate
       9.  (Alk); Alkalinity 10. (Hard);  Hardness  11. (Chi); Chloride
      12.  (Fe);  Iron and Manganese   13.  (Sulf);  Sulfate  14. D.O.  (Dis
           solved Oxygen)

       -  ;  Now under discussion
       +  ;  No speci al limit
       /  ;  L. . is not determined because  of the presence of (+)  mark.

       "  ;  Assumed
                                       -26-

-------
Table -  III
     Permissible quality levels for  Indirect Contact Use  (j = 2)
     (F.W.P.C.A., 1967)
               123^      5    6    7   8  9    10    11   12    13

Fishing
  Use         55   -  30  6.0 to -2000 ----+     ___
                          9.0

Agri cul tural
  Use              +  -   6.0 to  -  500   -  45. -   +     +   1.0-
                          8.5

Fruit and
Vegetable      +   5  5   6.5     -  500   .10 10 250 250  250   O.k   250

Industrial                /. Q
  ii                       b~o
  Use

Average; L.   /    / ]8   g'j    _200Q
Note:  Agricultural use  is Farmstead and  Irrigation
                                      -27-

-------
Table - |y
    Permissible quality levels for Remote Contact Use
    (F.W.P.C.A., 1967)
(j  3)

1 ron £ steel
(cool i ng)
Cement
Pet roleum
P u 1 p**
To v t- i 1 Q ;'c ;V Vc

r L. _ _. ; »_i-'--'- j- -'-
tnemi ca 1 •"•" -
Navi gati on
Aes thet i c
Ave rage. L . .
ij
1
100
-

95




-
-
98
2
+
-

10

5


-
-
/
3
+
+

-




-
-
1
k
5-9
6.5
9.0
6.0-
9.0
6.10

6.4-
10.3
A C
o . ;>
6.1
-
-
6.1
9.1
5
+
+
+
+

+


-
-
/
6
-
600
1000
-

100
•}•?£
JjO
-
-
510
7
10
500
10
10

5
c
5
-
-
90
8
+
+
+
+

+


-
-
/
9
-
400
-
-


1 Lz
i "i?
-
-
21k
10
-

350
100

25
7 in

-
-
171
11
-
250
300
200


28

-
-
195
12
-
25.5
1.0
l.J

0.2
0 7

-
-
5.6
13
-
250
+
+


85
u;j
-
-
/
\k
-
-
-
-




-
-
2.0*
       ";';;  Bleached

      " •>";  Average of  sizing,  scouring, bleaching,  and  dying

    ****j  Average of  organic  and  inorganic  matters

    Note:  For  Navigation  and  Aesthetic uses,  data  for  permissible  levels  are
           not  available yet.
                                          -28-

-------
Table V - Water quality in Oneida Lake (New York State  Dept.  Health,  1964)
            (Average data, 1960-1964)
1 tern
Temperature
Color
Turb i di ty
PH
Col i form
Total Solids
Suspended
Sol i ds
Cl
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7

Qjal i ty
63. 35 F
12.0 unit
12.0
8.2
72 MPN
209 ppm


1 tern
Total Nitrogen Co
Alkal inity
Hardness
S
C10
Chloride C.,
Fe, Mn
Sulfate
D issol ved
oxygen
C12
C13
C14

Qual i ty
-
86 ppm
128 ppm
26.0 ppm
neg.
84.4 ppm
8.0 ppm

    neg.  = negligible
                                         -29-

-------
Table VI - Calculation of Index, PI.  for Oneida Lake.
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
'.V
63.3/85.0=0.75
12.0/12.5=0.96
12. O/ 5.0=2.40
** =0 . 89
72/103 =0.7
209/500 =0.42
-/-
-/4.5
867-
1287-
26.07-
07-
84.4/250=0.34
*** =0.01
log^C./L..) (C./L..) = (C./L..)
or = 1.0 + 5xlog (C./L. .)
10 ' IJ
0.75
0.96
0.38 2.9 (max.)
0.89
0.7
0.42
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.34
0.1
Total 6.97


Average (C./L. .) = 6.977 8 = 0.87
i i J
             Note:  -  ; Datum  is not available.



                   --  ; Calculation  is not necessary




                   '•   ; Saturated concentration.




             A*  ;  ( 8.2 -  (6.5 + 8.3) 72 ) /  (8.3 -  (6.5+8.3)72) = 0.8/0.9=0.89



            ***  ;  (8.4* -  8.0) / (8.4* - 4.0) = 0.1






                                   -30-

-------
Table - V!I

Water Pollution of Surface Water Resources  in New York State expressed
by Pollution Indi ces.
             cr.  ;  creek,
R i . ; r i ve r,
L.  ;  lake
Surface Water
N i agara Ri .
N i agara Ri .
Erie L.
Cattaraugua Cr.
Buffalo Ri .
Cazenovia Cr.
Buffalo Ri .
Buffalo Ri .
Tonawanda Cr.
Al legheny Ri .
Conewango
Cassadaga
Ontari o L.
Aliens Cr.
Ontario L.
Genesee Ri .
Genesee Ri .
Genesee Ri .
Genesee Ri .
Chemung Ri .
Cohocton Ri .
Tioga Ri .
Susquehanna Ri .
Chenango Ri .
Toughnioga Ri .
Chenango
Susquehanna
Seneca Ri .
Seneca Ri .
Cayuga L.
Cayuga L.
Owas co L .
Skaneateles L.
Canandaigua L.
Seneca Ri .
Oswego Ri .
One i da L.
Seneca Ri .
Black Ri .
Black Ri .
Location
Youngstown
Buffalo
Buffalo
Gowanda
Buffalo
Buffalo
W. Seneca
W. Seneca
W. Seneca
Indian Res.
Carroll
Falconer
Rochester
Bri ngton
Oswego
Rochester
Rochester
Chili
Wellsville
Elmi ra
Campbel 1
L i ndley
Binghamton
Chenango
Barber
(henango
Unadi 1 la
Waterloo
(eneva
Cayuga
Fayette
Fleming
Skaneateles
Canandai gua
Montezuma
Oswego
Q cero
Clay
Watertown
Lyons Fal Is
Pll
6.0
7.9
4.5
2.4
10.6
9.4
9.3
11.8
3.2
0.7
3.3
4.3
8.1
3.0
4.5
2.6
2.3
2.6
8.1
8.2
3.4
2.7
9.2
2.3
2.6
0.8
0.4
4.7
1.1
8.1
1.8
2.0
1.7
0.9
4.7
10.3
2.1
4.9
8.2
8.3
PI2
1.4
2.5
2.4
0.7
6.1
4.8
6.0
7.8
1.7
0.6.
2.2
3.3
3.5
2.6
0.7
1.2
0.8
1.3
2.5
4.0
0.8
0.6
4.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.8
1.5
0.6
0.8
0.6
1.2
0.8
5.5
0.8
2.6
3.6
3.7
PI3
0.2
0.6
0.6
0.8
2.2
1.0
2.3
0.9
2.1
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.8
1.5
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
4.0
0.6
2.9
0.4
0.4
PI
2.5
3.6
2.5
1.3
6.3
5.1
5.9
6.8
2.3
0.6
2.1
2.7
4.1
2.1
1.9
1.5
1.3
1.8
3.7
4.3
1.6
1.3
4.8
1.2
1.3
0.7
0.4
2.0
0.9
3.4
1.0
1.1
0.9
0.9
2.0
6.6
1.1
3.5
4.1
4.1
                                        -31-

-------
Table - VI I   (Continued)
Surface Water
Lawrence Ri .
Lawrence Ri .
Raquette Ri .
Gross Ri .
Oswegatchie Ri .
Saranac Ri .
Ausab le Ri .
Hudson Ri .
Hosic Ri .
Hudson Ri .
Battenkool 1
Hudson Ri .
Mohawk Ri.
Mohawk Ri .
Sheoharie Cr.
Mohawk Ri .
E. Canada Cr.
Mohawk Ri .
W. Canada Cr.
Mohawk Ri .
Hudson
Frishki 11 Cr.
Wappinger Cr.
Wallkill
Hudson R
Hudson Ri .
Delaware Ri .
Nevers i nk Ri .
Delaware Ri .
Hackensack Ri .
Pascack Cr.
Pascack Cr.
Location
Massena
Cape Vincent
Massena
Massena
Ogdensburgh
Shuyler Falls
Ausab le
Vfeterford
Schaghti coke
fort Edward
Greenwi ch
Orinth
(bhoes
Schenectady
Freri da
Freri da
Manheim
St. Johnsvi 1 le
Herkimer
3i uy 1 e r
Poughkeeps ie
Beacon
Lagrange
Rosendale
Poughkeeps ie
Beth lehem
Port Jervis
Deer Park
Depos i t
Orange Town
Ramapo
C larks town
Pll
4.7
0.8
5.2
5.9
6.5
8.3
6.1
8.1
2.3
7.9
5.9
6.1
4.3
0.6
7-4
7.5
8.3
8.1
8.3
1.8
4.6
11.4
3.8
8.9
9.9
11.4
0.4
0.4
2.8
2.7
10.2
11.9
PI2
2.6
1.1
0.6
1.2
2.0
3.7
1.4
3.5
0.8
3-3
1.4
1.5
1.3
0.7
2.8
2.8
3.7
3.6
3.7
0.8
2.7
6.8
0.5
4.2
5.4
6.6
0.1
0.2
0.8
0.5
5.3
7.3
PI3
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
PI4
2.6
0.8
2.1
2.6
3.0
4.2
2.7
4.1
1.2
4.0
2.6
2.7
2.0
0.6
3.6
3.6
4.1
4.1
4.2
1.1
2.7
6.3
1.6
4.6
5.2
6.1
0.3
0.3
1.4
1.2
5.3
6.6
                                      -32-

-------
Therefore, P|  =    -       '        =2.1
 In the same way with the above, the PI   and Pl_  are also  calculated
 using L.- and L., in Table IN  and IV instead of L. .  (in  Table  II).
      Then, PI2 = 0.8
            PI. = 0.6
The overall Pollution Index,  PI,  is calculated by equation  (7),  applying
 the calculated PI., PI  , and  PI  values.   But, the  relative  weight
 values, w.'s, in the equation are quite difficult to determine  pre-
 cisely from the existing available data.   Therefore, the  relative weights
may be determined quite tentatively as  follows,  assuming  that all
water uses are equally  important  in our society.
         Wj = w2 = w3 = 1/3 	(12)

Current water users, however, in  Oneida Lake may be estimated quite
 roughly as follows; 40  % for  swimming use, 40 %  for fishing  use, and
20% for navigation, aesthetic,  and others.  From these rough estimations,
 relative weight values  may be possibly  determined as follows; w. =  0.4,
w» = 0.4, and w_ = 0.2.  Then,  the overall Pollution Index  for  Oneida
Lake is determined as follows:
        PJ_ = Wj  .Plj +  w2. PI2  +  w3.  PI3

           = 0.4 x 2.1  + 0.4  x  0.8 + 0.2 x 0.6 = 1.28n =  1.3

The Pollution Indices for other surface water resources in  New  York
State are-quantified in a manner  similar to that used for Oneida Lake.
 In the calculations, relation (12) is applied for relative weights
 (w.'s).  The water quality data for those resources are obtained from
"Periodic Report of Water Quality Surveilance Network, I960  thru 1964"
by New York, Department of Health.  The results  shown in  Table  - VII
generally indicate the  relative pollution of each water resource for
our water uses.   However, it  should be  emphasized that these are pre-
 liminary  results, and are quantified here quite tentatively  and mechani-
cally as a trial application  of the proposed Index method.
                                  -33-

-------
                           SECTION  VI I

                         ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
     This  study was  financed  by  a United  States  Department of
the Interior Grant,  WP-01089-01.
                                -35-

-------
                           SECTION  VI I I

                            REFERENCES


Federal Water Pollution Control  Administration:
"Interim Report of the National  Technical  Advisory  Committee on Water
Quality Criteria".  June 30,  1967.

New York State Department of  Health:
"Periodic Report of Water Quality Surveilance Network,  I960 thru  1964".

Horton, Robert, K.
"An Index-Number System for Rating  Water  Quality"
Journal of WPCF. Vol.  37, No.  3  March  1965-

Nemerow, Nelson, L.
"Economics of Waste Treatment"
Proceedings of 1st. Mid-Atlantic Industrial Waste Conference, University
of Delaware, Nov.  13,  1967-   pp  17-31.
                                    -37-

-------
PART B - MEASUREMENT OF THE TOTAL  DOLLAR
   BENEFIT OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
              DEVELOPED BY
  NELSON L.  NEMEROW AND ROBERT C.  FARO
                      -39-

-------
                            SECTION I

                           CONCLUSIONS


     1.  The dollar benefit of a lake  or stream at  a  given water
quality is determined by listing all  uses which both  affect  and
are affected by water quality, by valuing each  use  individually,
and by summing the resultant values.

     2.  The beneficial water uses which are measurable  and
affected by or affect the water quality are categorized  as  recrea-
tion uses, withdrawal water uses, wastewater disposal  uses,  bordering
land uses, and in-stream water uses.

     3.  The values of beneficial uses are measured by either  a
willingness to pay or an evaluation of benefits derived  from
avoiding payment.  The value of these  uses is estimated  by  taking
surveys of the users at the lake or stream to determine  the  extent
of demand for each use and the amount  each user is  willing  to  pay
for a unit of use.  This unit benefit  is then multiplied by  total
demand to give annual dollar benefit  for a particular use.   Total
annual  dollar benefit at a given water quality  is  the sum of these
benefits for each use.

     k.  Total annual dollar benefit at an improved water quality
is estimated by determining the probable demand for beneficial water
uses at the new quality.  This demand  is estimated  by surveying
the present demand for comparable uses at a nearby  lake  or  stream
with this new quality or it is estimated by questioning  potential
water users to determine latent demand for possible beneficial uses
at this new quality which is presently being foregone.

     5.  Water-oriented recreation uses include sightseeing, walking
and hiking, swimming, sport fishing, picnicking, boating, hunting,
camping, water skiing, canoeing, sailing, and skin  and scuba diving.
These recreation uses are valued by including all  of  the expenditures
incurred by the average recreationist  as a measure  of his willingness
to pay.  These include the costs of equipment,  food,  travel  and park
user fees.

     6.  Withdrawal water uses  include municipal water supply,
industrial water  supply, and agricultural and farmstead  water  supply.
The water quality benefits  reflected  in municipal  water  supply are
computed  to be at least equal to the cost of water treatment by
chemical  coagulation, sedimentation and  rapid sand filtration.  Those
for  industrial water supply are estimated by using water treatment
costs, not to exceed  those  for municipal treatment.  Agricultural
and  farmstead benefits  are  estimated as negative values  if damages
have occurred to  irrigation, poultry and  livestock watering, farmstead,
or dai ry  uses .

-------
      7.  Wastewater disposal benefits which presently accure to
waste dischargers are estimated to be equal to the costs of waste
treatment  required to meet existing pollution control standards.
These costs  include those for waste treatment plant construction
and operation,  industrial wastewater reduction, interceptor sewer
construction, water quality surveillance, stream low-flow augmentation,
in-stream  aeration and complete removal of toxic, radioactive or
high temperature effluents.

     8.  Bordering land value benefits for a particular land use
at a given water quality are calculated by comparing the per acre
market value of shoreline property with nearby non-shoreline pro-
perty.  These market values are computed by using local  tax records
and the tax equalization rates.  The difference between the shore-
line and non-shoreline per acre values reflect the unit benefits
or damages of the shoreline location.  Values at an improved water
quality are estimated by applying this method to a nearby lake and by
projecting the  ratio of shoreline to non-shoreline per acre value back
to the original lake at an improved quality.

     9.  In-stream water uses include commercial fishing, barge and
ship navigation, flood control, and hydroelectric power generation.
The value of commercially-caught fish is a positive value and is
taken as a benefit while the other uses involve damages  or negative
benefi ts.

    10.  A net social  benefit of at least 4.4 million dollars per
year has been computed using this method and it will  accrue to users
of Onondaga Lake if the water quality is improved to support
swimming, boating, sport fishing, municipal water supply and shore-
1i ne land uses.

    11.   Recreation proved to be the most important beneficial  use
for Onondaga Lake at  improved water quality and its value comprises
close to half of the  total  positive net annual  benefits.  Sport fishing
is  the most important  recreation use, with sport fishing benefits
comprising  greater than 70 percent of the net annual  recreation use
benef i ts.
                                 -42-

-------
                            SECTION I I

                         RECOMMENDATIONS


     An economic analysis of Onondaga Lake indicates an estimated
k.h million dollars in annual net social benefit which will  accrue
to water-using society with improved water quality.   This  writer
believes the estimate to be conservative, especially in the  area of
recreation use benefits.

The procedure used in this benefit analysis should be useful  to
river basin administrators and pollution control authorities faced
with the problem of deciding whether to spend money  to improve the
quality of streams and lakes.  Several  studies are now in  progress
to define possible methods for improving the water quality on Onon-
daga Lake and the corresponding annual  costs.  Combining these annual
costs with the estimated annual social  benefit resulting from im-
proved water quality in a benefit-cost  ratio will provide  decision-
making criteria for those responsible for pollution  control.

     In the Onondaga Lake example, some difficulty was experienced in
estimating the recreation demand by the interspatial projection of
demand from Green Lakes State Park.  It was found that unit  recreation
demand or the expected number of visits per capita from each zone,
V(J)/P(J), was not completely dependent upon water quality.   That is,
there were some zones for Green Lakes State Park where the unit recrea-
tion demand was lower than that for corresponding zones at Onondaga
Lake Park.  The arbitrary assignment of Green Lakes  unit recreation
demand to Onondaga Lake would have created the false assumption that,
for these four zones, the recreation demand in visits per  capita from
each of these zones would decrease if Onondaga Lake  water  quality were
improved to that of Green Lake.  This suggests that  correction is
necessary in order to use the unit recreation demand from  a  recreation
area with high water quality to estimate recreation  demand with
improved water quality at a recreation  area where water quality is
presently'iow.  The unit recreation demand must be compensated to
reflect the effects of difference in physical characteristics of the
recreation areas and differences in tastes of recreationists in
corresponding zones for different areas.

     Perhaps a more accurate method for determining  the potential unit
recreation demand for a recreation area with improved water  quality
is to mail a questionnaire or conduct a door-to-door survey  of the
population in the area bordering the lake or stream.  However these also
are often unreliable since people do not always act  as they  say they
would under the improved water quality  condition (Nerne row, 1968).
The areal expance of this survey need not be overly  extensive.  In the
Onondaga Lake example as it is noted in Table XIV, 66 percent of the
visitors to Onondaga Lake Park originate from within.Onondaga County
and from Table XV, 84% are estimated to originate within a 20 mile

-------
 radius from the park.  It seems that the data obtained in this
 survey and the other surveys would be readily adaptable to
 digital computer storage and analysis.

     A study of future demand for water-qua]ity-related
 beneficial uses was not conducted for Onondaga Lake.  The
 growth in demand for these beneficial uses may, in many cases,
 be correlated with the growth of the area population and may
 therefore be estimated quite closely by using a population pro-
 jection.  Specific recommendations include;

     1.  Water pollution control authorities, when faced with the
 problem of deciding the worth of installing any form of additional
waste treatment, should allocate a portion of the overall budget
 to conduct a benefit analysis.  Assume that a 10 mgd secondary
waste treatment plant will  cost 3-5 million dollars to construct.
 By using the newly-proposed method, this writer feels that an adequate
 benefit analysis to define the worth of this plant may be conducted
 at a cost of as little as one-half of one percent of the construction
 costs or $17,500.

     2.  Additional research effort should be concentrated on the
 determination of water-quality-related recreation use benefits.
 Sport fishing benefits should receive specific attention since sport
 fishermen incur relatively high costs and therefore show a high willing-
 ness to pay for this  use.  The considerable number of sport fishermen
 that crowded Lake Michigan during the summer of 1968 to harvest the
Coho salmon serves  as a good illustration of this fact.

     3.  A questionnaire should be mailed or a door-to-door survey
should be conducted of the population in the area bordering a lake
or stream of low quality to determine potential  recreation demand
at an improved water quality.

     k.  Projections  should be made for future recreation benefits
at Onondaga Lake with improved water quality by correlating growth
 in recreation demand  and other beneficial  uses with the population
growth.

     5.  The political,  legal, and administrative feasibility of
creating "river basin firms" to make economic decisions and to allocate
the dwindling natural  resources on an equitable basis should be investi-
gated.
                                  -kk-

-------
                           SECTION 1 I I

                           INTRODUCTION

Why Measure the Benefits of Water Pollution Control?

     During the past half century, the  art of sanitary engineering
has developed rather sophisticated mechanical,  chemical,  and  bio-
logical techniques for purging wastewaters of undesirable contam-
inants.  These processes have been developed through  the  motivation
of definite needs in particular cases.   Usually the need  for  pro-
viding an increased degree of treatment for a sewage  or an  industrial
waste existed long before the treatment process was installed.   The
need was usually quite clearly defined; that is, a waste  discharge was
creating a definite public health menace by contaminating a public
water supply, a waste discharge was causing deposition of sludge
banks of organic material in a stream which decomposed, creating
odoriferous, paint-blackening hydrogen  sulfide gas in residential
areas, or fish kills in a fine fishing  stream were directly attri-
butable to an industrial waste being discharged.  These problems
could usually be economically remedied  by removing specific con-
taminants or fifty to eighty-five percent of the organic  constituents
of the waste stream.

     Today, we in the United States have the same quantity  of water
in our streams and lakes and the same amount of rainfall  for  dilution
purposes, that we have always had in historic times.   But now we find
that the quantity of water-borne wastes has risen sharply and will
continue to rise with increased population and industrial growth.  We
know that each lake and stream has a definite limit on the quantity
of waste it can absorb and still satisfy other beneficial uses.  There-
fore, in order to maintain even a constant water quality  we must continue
to remove ever increasing amounts of contaminants from our  wastewaters.
The disheartening truth we must face is that to achieve removal  of higher
percentages of contaminants, even greater than ninety-nine  percent in
many cases is necessary, requires perhaps four or five times  the costs
of our present waste treatment practices.  The immediate  question  that
arises and one that must be answered is: "Is it worth it?", "Do  the
benefits which accrue to water-using society justify  the  increasing  costs
of waste treatment?"

     The federal and state governments  have decided that  the  benefits
which accrue to society do justify the  increasing costs of  waste treat-
ment and they:

     have attempted by laws, education, gentle persuasion,  conferences,  and
     court decisions to regulate the increasing amount of contaminating
     matter entering our water courses.  The "gap" between  water as  a
     free commodity and the tremendous  sums required  to keep  water
     from being contaminated has been too wide for regulation alone  to  be
     effective.   (Nemerow, 1966a:3)-
                                   -45-

-------
      As  an  alternative  to regulation,  various  authorities have
 advanced the  recommendation  of  using effluent  charges  to effectively
 control  mounting  pollution.

      Both  the government-regulation and effluent-charge methods of
 administration require  that  the real benefits  arising  from water
 quality  control and  pollution abatement be quantified.  This  is
 necessary "so that both  industry  and the public will be in a  position
 to examine  the economics  of  a given waste treatment situation."
 (Nemerow,  1966a:2)

      Kneese  (1967-'710) has pointed out that principles o" welfare
 economics must be used to determine water quality benefits:

      Economics is a  theory of social values.   Our society has the
      value  judgement  that individual tastes and values are to
      govern the uses  of  resources in a free society.  The Flood
      Control  Act of  1935  enunciated a general  welfare economics
      criterion when it indicated that projects  should be considered
      justified if, "the benefits, to whomsoever they accrue,  exceed
      the cost."

      In  the past, most of the real benefits which resulted from waste
 treatment were considered "irreducibles."  This is primarily  because
 no one has been willing or able to put a dollar value on them (Nemerow,
 1966B).

 How to Measure Benefits?

      The engineer is  rather  reluctant to become involved in a study of
 benefits since this area  has been considered the realm of the economist.
 When  the engineer considers  the construction of a waste treatment plant,
 he  is able to  predict, within relatively small tolerances, the cost of
 the completed  facility.    He  may accurately estimate the cost of the
 acquisition and preparation, he can compute the in-place cost of rein-
 forced concrete and structural steel from current market prices, he may
 obtain the installed costs of various mechanical and electrical  compon-
 ents  from suppliers and he may estimate the-cost of borrowing money to
 fund  the project.   By simply summing the individual  costs of all portions
 of  the project, he may calculate the total cost.

     The economist,• when  considering the benefits of a given project,
 may  desire to  use a technique similar to engineering cost estimating.
That  is, to establish separate units of benefit measure and to multiply.
-Literature cited is listed alphabetically at the back of this paper.
The citation appears as the surname of the author first, followed by
the year of publication and the page number for a direct quotation.

-------
the number of these separate units used, by the average market
price per unit to obtain the total value of each benefit.   The
summing of these separate benefits then would give total  benefits
for the project.  He is immediately faced with several  problems:
(1) How may the separate units of benefits be defined?  (2)  How to
determine the nSmber of separate benefit units which will  be demanded
for future use? and (3) What unit beneficial \alue to select in the
absence of a market price per unit?

How May the Separate Units of Water Quality Benefits Be Defined?

     The benefits associated with the quality of a particular body
of water are intimately related to the uses which society  desires
to make of the particular lake or stream.  Therefore, the  separate
units of water quality benefits may be listed by listing each possible
beneficial use of the water.  This list will become extensive but
these beneficial uses may be broadly categorized as shown  in Table I.

                             TABLE I

               Categories of Beneficial Water Uses

                    1.   Recreation Uses
                    2.   Withdrawal Water Uses
                    3.   Wastewater Disposal Uses
                    4.   Bordering Land Uses
                    5.   In-stream Water Uses

     It is realized that many of these beneficial water uses are  not
mutually compatible, such as swimming and waste disposal.   Therefore
each quality level in a given body of water wi11 produce a heirarchy
of beneficial  uses.  The greatest beneficial uses will  change with
the quality.  Categorizing the beneficial uses and eventually identi-
fying and summing the dollar benefits, at varying quality  levels will
thus allow administrators to decide the worth of various waste treatment
alternati ves.

How to Determine the Number of Separate Benefit Units Which Will  be
Demanded for Future Use?"

     Any attempt to determine future demand for a specific beneficial
use is necessarily a guess.   This demand may be estimated  by two
methods: (l) The intertemporal method, by measuring the past and
present demand for the use at the site and then on the basis of the
trend, projecting future demand. (2)  The interspatial method, by
measuring the present demand at another site where the physical conditions
of the site and the nature of demand are comparable to those that  will
occur at the study site in the future.

What Unit Beneficial Value to Select in the Absence of a Market Price
per Unit?
                                    -47-

-------
     Economists generally agree that in a free market "the prices of
goods and factors of production accurately represent their contribu-
tions to social welfare," (Kneese, 1964:39), and thus social benefits.
The market mechanism establishes the value and produces an equal
standard of measure for different goods and services on the basis of the
willingness of consumers to pay for them (Kneese, 1966; Gaffney, 196?).
In the absence of a market price for a given water use, a measure of
the user's willingness to pay may be substituted in order to measure
benefits.  Of the five general categories of beneficial water uses
listed in Table I, only the value of bordering land may be represented
by a valid market price.  The other four categories demand that we
establish a substitute for a market price based upon the willingness of
water users to pay.

     The willingness to pay measure may also be extended to include
pollution damages which users incur, since damages are dollars which the
consumer must pay or forego with continued use of the resource.

-------
                           SECTION IV

       TOTAL ANNUAL SOCIAL BENEFIT AT  A PARTICULAR LEVEL  OF
                          WATER QUALITY
     The problem is to determine the value which  the public
attaches to water containing pollution and to estimate the  in-
crease in value of these same waters with a decrease in pollution.
The public's willingness to pay for water uses will  be used as
the measure of value.

     We believe that the only acceptable method of measuring the
social benefits of water pollution control for a  specific water
body is to categorize them in classes based on water uses and then
to conduct surveys of the water body to measure the  extent  of
public demand at existing quality levels.  These  surveys  will
cover the five categories of beneficial uses listed  in Table I.
Future demand at different quality levels should  be  determined  by
an intertemporal projection of existing demand or an interspatial
study of a similar water body at the new quality  level.

     It has been suggested that the degree of pollution of  a body  of
water may be measured by a pollution index (PI).   The pollution index
is a numerical constant at a given level of water quality and is
composed of thirteen parameters consisting of temperature,  color,
turbidity, pH, coliform bacteria count, total solids, suspended
solids, total nitrogen, alkalinity, hardness, chlorides,  iron and
manganese, and sulfates (See Part A).

     The dollar benefit of a particular water use at a given quality
level is the average demand in units of use multiplied by the average
willingness to pay for a unit of use.  The total  annual social
benefit or value of a particular water body at a  given water quality
may be determined by summing the benefits obtained in the five  surveys
Therefore, at a given level of pollution, pollution  index PI equals  a
constant (C(l), referred to as PI = C(L):

          B = B(R) + B(W1) + B(WD) + B(L) + B(IS)

where   B   = The total annual social benefit of  the water  resource
              at PI = C(L).
B(R)
B(WI)
B(WD)
B(L)
B(IS)
= Annual recreation use benefits.
= Annual withdrawal water use benefits.
= Annual wastewater disposal benefits.
= Annual bordering land use benefits.
= Annual in-stream water use benefits.
     The value of the same body of water at a different water quality,
PI=C(2), may be estimated by the interspatial method if the new pollution
index represents the quality of a nearby body of water with physical
                                   -49-

-------
characteristics other than water quality,  which are  similar to  the
first.  A survey of present water uses  at  the second body  of
water should produce a demand relation  which  may be  applied to  the
original body of water.   If differences exist in physical  character-
istics which are quantifiable,  such as, beach area available for
swimming, the demand projection from the second to the  first body of
water may be compensated by an  appropriate factor, such  as  the  ratio
of the areas.

     Similarly, by the intertemporal  method,  the value  of  the
original body of water at a di fferent water quality,  PI  =  C(3), may be
estimated by setting forth uses which the  body of water  could support
at this quality and by projection of the future demand  for these uses
from existing demand data.

     Therefore, a curve  of water quality benefits versus po-lution
index may be plotted for a given body of water, with  the number of
points on the curve corresponding to the number of interspatial or
intertemporal studies which were conducted.   A hypothetical  curve
is shown in Fi gure I.
 Total    300

 Social   250

 Benefit  !50

 (1000's  100

   of      50

 dollars)    0
                            Figure  1

                Value of Water Quality Control
                   For a Hypothetical Lake
                             Pollution  Index
                                -50-

-------
                           SECTION V

                      RECREATION USE SURVEY

Recreation Use Benefits

     The Recreation Use Survey has been listed as the first survey
to be conducted.  In the United States, most agencies involved in
the measurement of the benefits of water quality control  estimate
that the greatest dollar benefits will accrue to recreation users.
The procedure proposed in this research for the measurement of the
monetary value of water-based recreation is one that estimates
present and future demand for specific uses, that incorporate the
total expenditures of the recreation user as a valid measure of the
consumer's willingness to pay in the absence of market prices (Whiteley,
1968) and that sums the product of units of demand times  the dollar
value of the consumer's willingness to pay per unit to obtain total
recreation use benefits.

     Other researchers in the area of recreation economics  have
measured recreation benefits by "estimating what a discriminating
monopolist might be able to extract from each recreationist"
(Whiteley, 1968:842) through the charging of added user fees at the
site.  This procedure was originated by Hotel ling (19^9)  and described
by Stevens (1966:168):

      He suggested defining concentric zones around the recreational
      site, so that travel  costs would be approximately constant
      within each zone.  This definition would enable the formation
      of a demand curve, in that travel cost from each zone would be
      plotted together with the number of visitors from that zone.
      Users from the closer zones would enjoy a "consumer surplus"
      by not having to pay the full travel  costs of users in the
      more distant zones.  Integration of the area under  the demand
      curve would indicate the extent of consumer surplus and
      thus afford an estimate of the recreational value of  the site.

     Stevens (1966)  and Clawson and Knetsch (1966) describe thoroughly
the basis and justification for the use of consumer surplus for
measuring benefits.   Basically, recreation benefits are considered
to be only those dollars which a monopolist could recover from
recreation users as  entrance fees at the recreation site.  This is
necessarily a highly conservative view in that it reflects  only a
portion of the recreation user's willingness to pay.  He  also spends
significant amounts  of money in the home community, and enroute,  in
addition to that spent or able to be spent at the recreation site.

     We believe that gross  expenditures by recrationists  should be used
to value water-oriented outdoor recreation.  The data in  Table II  show
that for the major outdoor recreation activities, generally
                               -51-

-------
                                 Table I I
     Percent of U. S. adults engaging often, and a few times, in selected
outdoor activities, by location of residence of the person, 1959-60.
Activity & Frequency
Percent engaging in activity

         Res i dence
Cities   Suburban  Adjacent  Outlying
           Areas     Areas      Areas
Outdoor
sw immi ng
or going
to a
beach
Fish i ng

Hunt! ng

Driving
for s i ght-
seeing and
rel axat i on
P i en i cs

Campi ng



More than 4 times
1 - 4 t \ mes

More than 4 times
1 - 4 t i mes
More than 4 times
1 - 4 t i mes

More than 4 times
1 - 4 times

More than 4 times
1 - 4 t i mes
More than 4 times
1-4 times


23
21

13
16
5
5

46
23

29
36
5
5


36
22

19
19
7
6

49
24

37
35
8
9


28
17

22
16
10
9

50
24

32
34
5
8


18
16

26
20
14
14

42
23

27
32
8
12
Note: Cities are urban places of 50,000 population or more;  suburban areas
immediately surround these cities;  adjacent areas extend beyond suburban
areas to a distance of 50 miles; outlying areas are at least 50 miles  from
a city of 50,000 population or more.

     Source: ORRRC, 1962b:2l8
                                        -52-

-------
over fifty percent of those adults who engage in the activities,  do
so more than four times per year.   After a person partakes  of a
given form of recreation more than once, we may safely assume that
it was at least worth what he spent to participate.   This  cost re-
presents aggregate willingness to pay and therefore, it is  a better
measure of social benefits than is consumer surplus.

     We are not interested in capturing dollars as  a monopolist
seeking a profit but in imputing a realisitic dollar value  on water-
oriented recreation by selecting user's willingness  to pay  as a
valid measure and in totaling these benefits "to whomsoever they
accrue" (Kneese, 1967:710).

     Since travel and travel-associated costs constitute a  considerable
portion of the gross expenditures  of the recreation  user,  the geo-
graphic analysis method employed by Clawson and Knetsch (1966) for
determining total travel costs is  considered valid and useful. They
(Clawson and Knetsch, 1966:64) defend this geographic approach by
saying that:

     We must accept the pattern of population distribution, of
     distribution of recreation areas, of income of  the population,
     of transportation facilities, of use of the recreation areas
     and other factors as we find them.

     We use the zone technique to determine the variable travel costs
to the recreation area.

     The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation considers the  outdoor recreation
activities listed in Table IV as those most important in association
with water and water quality.  Water dependent recreation  activities
are those which could not be carried out without the  use of  a body of
water while water-enhanced recreation activities are those  which  are
enhanced by the presence of a body of water but can  be carried out in
the absence of water.

                            Table I I I

Outdoor Recreation Activities Most Important in Association with  Water
                        and Water Quali ty

Water-Dependent                                   Water-Enhanced

1.  Swimming                                      1.  Camping
2.  Fishing                                       2.  Picnicking
3.  Boating                                       3-  Sightseeing
4.  Water-skiing                                  4.  Nature Walks
5-  Canoeing                                      5-  Hiking
6.  Sailing                                       6.  Hunti ng
                                 -53-

-------
 Data Collection  for  the  Recreation Use  Survey

      In order  to construct  a  demand  schedule for water-based
 recreation,  it is  suggested that  the following  3 terns be com-
 pleted in  the  data collection portion of  the recreation use survey:

      1. Location

         Locate  the  lake or stream on a map showing village,
 residential  development, city ward,  township, county, state and
 federal boundaries.
      2.   Interspatial Areas  for Comparison
          List  all  present and potential water  recreation areas
within  fifty to one hundred miles of the  lake  or stream under con-
si deration.

      3.   Travel Distance Zones of Each Zone

          Delineate twenty concentric mileage zones of visitor origin
at  progressively  increasing distances from the  recreation lake or
stream.   Let (J) be the zone number and let D  (j) be the average one-
way  distance in miles from the center of  the zone of origin  (J) to the
recreation site.  The areas of origin within a specific zone should be
based on  existing  political or census subdivisions.

          The areas of origin should be smallest and most specific the
nearest to the recreation site and then increase in size with increasing
distance  from  the site.  It is suggested  that  the mileages listed in
Table IV  be used to delineate zones and the political subdivisions for
areas within zones.

     A.   Population Determination of Each Zone

          Determine the population of each zone or origin (J)  using
data from the most recent census.  Census population data is  presented
by city census  division, towns and villages.   A census map with the
zone boundaries marked will  show within which zone a particular census
division  falls.  A town may fall  h as many as  four zones.  The popula-
tion of a zone  may be calculated by summing the parts contributed by
each census division .  Let P(J)  equal  the population of zone (J).

     5.   Annual Recreation Attendance

         Determine the annual  recreation attendance at the recreation
area bordering  the lake or stream to be studied.  Recreation  attendance
may be measured in recreation  days.   A  recreation day is defined as:
                                   -54-

-------
                              Table  IV




          Concentric Mileage  Zones of Visitor Origin About



. Mi leage
(1) Range
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
0 -
2 -
4 -
6 -
10 -
15 -
20 -
25 -
30 -
40 -
50 -
60 -
80 -
100 -
150 -
200 -
300 -
500 -
1000 -
>2000
2
4
6
10
15
20
25
30
40
50
60
80
100
150
200
300
500
1000
2000

Water Body
D(J)
(2)
1
3
5
8
12.5
17.5
22.5
27.5
35
45
55
70
90
125
175
250
400
750
1500


Pol i tical
Subdi vi s ion
Vi 1 lage, Town
Res ident i al
Development,
City Ward


Townsh i p ,
City




County



State,
P rovi nee,
Terr i tory ,
County
(1)   Zone number,  (2) Average  One-way Distance  in Miles
                                   -55-

-------
       A  visit by one  individual to a  recreation development or
       area  for  recreation purposes during a  reasonable portion
       or all of a 24-hour period  (Bureau of  Outdoor Recreation,
       1967:1-4).

       Base  the  attendance on an annual  recreation season and use
       park  authority  records of daily visits to obtain data.  Let
       V  equal the total annual recreation days for the area.

       6.  Average Recreation Participation per Visit by Use and Zone

          Conduct a survey of visitors  to the recreation area.
 Determine recreation  demand by questioning a sample of visitors.
 Determine the average visitor participation  per visit for each
 recreation  use  (L) by visitors from each zone (J).  Units of re-
 creation  use may be measured h visitor-days with one visitor-day
 being:

     The  presence of one ornore persons on lands or waters, generally
     recognized as providing outdoor  recreation, for continuous,
     intermittent or simultaneous periods of time totaling twelve
     hours  (Hawkins and Tindall,  1966:2).

     Itemize the recreation use in visitor-days per visit based on the
 twelve different uses listed in Table V and  the twenty different
 zones or origin listed in Table IV.  The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
 (1967) assumes that the average person  participates in 2.5 activities
 during an average visit to a recreation area.  Let N (l,J) equal the
 number of visitor-days per visit demanded for recreation use (l) by
 visitors  from zone (J).

     Also determine the zone of origin  (J) for each visitor questioned
 in the survey.  Let VS (J) equal the total number of sample visits from
 zone (J).

     It may be advantageous to preserve the visitor origin by the
 specific political division in the zero to fifty miles range, instead
 of grouping in mileage zones only.  These values may be useful in
 determining the specific recreation demand of a particular village,
 residential  development, or city ward.

     The attendance measurements for various uses by visitors from
 various zones should be based on a sampling  technique which produces
 results which are representative with a high probability of accuracy.
 Care should be taken to sample during periods of minimum demand
 such as  rainy days, weekends , ande/enings as well as during periods
of peak demand,  on sunny weekends and holidays.   A proper statistical
 method should be selected.
                                   -56-

-------
                              Table V






                    Water Based Recreation  Uses






       Recreation Use                            Value  of  Index  (l)
Sightseeing                                           1




Walking and Hiking                                    2




Swimming                                              3




Fishing (Warm, Cold & Salt Water)                      k




Picnicking                                            5




Boating                                               6




Hunting                                               7




Camping (Temt, Trailer & Group)                        8




Water Ski i ng                                          9




Canoeing                                             10




Sai1 ing                                              11




Skin  & Scuba Diving                                  12
                                     -57-

-------
      7.   Base  Cost Per Visit  for Each Use

          Determine a base cost per visit for the recreation uses listed
 in Table  V.   Include all expenditures made by the average recreationist
 to participate in the particular recreation activity, other than travel
 and  travel  associated costs.  This data may be obtained from private
 and  governmental; local, state, and national recreation organizations,
 but  care  should be exercised to assure that general costs apply to the
 specific  area.  Costs for general recreation uses such as camping may
 be reported such that they  include expenses for other more definite
 lesser uses such as swimming.  Let R(l) = Base Cost per Visit for Use
 (I).

          The base cost per  visitor-day for a given water recreation use
 should be fairly constant for the general local area of the study.
 This  area would usually be  a collection of several counties, an area of,
 say  10,000  to  40,000 square miles (100 x 100 miles to 200 x 200 miles).
 An average value should adequately represent the true value fn this
 area  of limited extent.

          The base cost per  visitor-day should include money spent at the
 recreation site plus the unit cost per visitor-day for equipment and
 supplies  necessary to perform the given type of recreation.

          I terns of the following nature will  fall in the category of
 money spent at the recreation site:  park entrance fees; money spent
 at concessions; the cost of rental  of recreation equipment,  such as
 boats and canoes; the fees  for bath house use at the beach;  the cost
 of cabin  rental for overnight stays; the cost of rental of camp site
 or trailer site; fees for boat launching; parking fees; the cost of
 fish bait; and the cost of  food, over and above that cost which would
 have been incurred at home  (usually spent at restaurants and for
 groceries) .

          In the category of money spent for equipment are all  of the
 expenses   incurred at home in preparation for the recreation  experience.
The unit   cost per visitor-day for the use of this equipment  may be
 calculated as being its original  total  cost  less its salvage value,
 divided by the number of uses during its useful  lifetime.   The equipment
 costs may include the costs  of:  boats;  motors;  canoes; sailboats; boat
 registrations; boat trailers; water skis and accessories;  swimming  equip-
ment  including suits,  floats and other water toys;  special  clothing costs
such  as shoes for hiking,  hunting clothes for duck hunters;  camping equip-
ment  including tents,  tent trailers,  camper  trailers, stoves,  lanterns,
cooking utensils,  cots,  air  matresses,  folding  chairs, sleeping bags, knives,
axes, packs; fishing equipment;  fishing licenses, hunting licenses; federal
duck  stamps; special  vehicles, such  as  jeeps,  amphibious cars, hunting
equipment including  guns,  decoys;  and skin-diving equipment  such as air
tanks, face masks  and wet  suits.
                                  -58-

-------
        These values may be obtained from the users themselves
by sending questionnaires to each specific group of users, such
as obtained from boat registration lists, and hunting license
lists.  Values also may be obtained from local organizations of
sportsmen including rod and gun clubs and others.  Initial estimates
may be corrected later in the survey to achieve greater accuracy, when
additional data is made available during the study.

     8. Automobile Travel Costs

        Determine the average cost per mile for automobile travel
including gas, oil, tires, repairs, registration, insurance and
depreciation.  Let K equal the costs per mile.  This  will  generally be
on the order of ten to fifteen cents per mile.

     9. Travel Associated Costs

        Determine the average cost per visit to visitors from
each zone, for travel associated costs, such as restaurant meals,
motel accommodations and tourist goods.  Let A(J) = Cost per Visit,
Zone (J).  These travel associated costs will be costs other than
direct automobile expenses which have been incurred in traveling to
and returning from the recreation site.  They should  include the cost
of food over and above the cost which would have been incurred at
home, that is, expenses for restaurant meals and for  additional or
more expensive groceries; hotel or motel expenses for overnight stays,
the cost of tourist goods and services purchases on the trip and any
other expenses, other than those for automobile use which  will  be
incurred during travel to the si te and would not have  been  otherwise in-
curred.

        Total travel costs per visit tT(j) = 2 x K x  D(J)  + A(J)} may
not be completely chargeable to the water recreation  experience at
the site if the visitor has come to the area for other purposes in
addition to water recreation.  These total costs cannot be assigned
as benefits which reflect the iser's willingness to pay since not all
of these costs to visitors from all zones are attributable to the
water recreation experience.  Instead, as the point of visitor origin
moves progressively further from the recreation area, the  visit to the
recreation area becomes a small percentage of the total purpose of the
trip.  Over one hundred miles distant, the purpose of the  visit
becomes a progressively smaller percent of the total  purpose of the
trip.  The travel  cost T(J) per visit to visitors from a distance over
one hundred miles, assigned as benefits thus should decrease as the
ratio of the purpose of the visit to the purpose of the trip decreases,
Clawson and Knetsch (1966) suggest that a cost sharing technique be
applied with that portion of the costs being allocated to  the water
recreation is to the whole purpose of the trip.

    10. Annual Additional Cost of Water Recreation Area Maintenance
        and Operation
                                  -59-

-------
         Determine the annual cost of water recreation area
maintenance and operation that is not covered by money received
from user charges.  That is, money which must be paid by federal,
state or local governments for the maintenance and upkeep of the
park.  Let G equal the annual additional cost of park maintenance
and operation.

     11. Other Areas in the Interspatial Survey

         Carry out steps three through ten for every other present
and potential water recreation area listed in step two.

Data Calculation for the Recreation Use Survey

     The following calculations should be made in order to determine
the total annual recreation use benefits, B(R), for a given water
recreation site:

     1.   Annual Recreation Demand by Use and Zone

         Determine the annual recreation demand for each recreation
use (I)  by visitors from zone (j) as follows:

         The total  sample size of visitors questioned in the survey is:

                      20
               VS  =  l   VS(J)
                      J=l
         The total  annual  number of visits from zone (J)  is:

               V(J) = VS(J)  x V/VS

         The annual recreation demand in visitor-days for recreation use
(1) by visitors from zone (J)  is:

               V(I,J)  = V(J)  x N(I,J)

     2.   Travel Cost per Visit

         The travel cost per visit for visitors from each zone (J) is:

               T(J) = 2 x K x D(J) + A(J)

     3.   Total  Cost per Visitor-day for Each  Use and Zone

         The total  cost per visitor-day for each use (l)  to visitors
from zone (J)  is:
                    R(D  +  T(J)       R(l)  + 2  x K x D(J)  + A(J)
     k.   Total  Annual  Recreation  Benefits  for a Particular Use

         The  total  annual  recreation  use benefits  for the water body are:
                                   -60-

-------
             , -             20  20
      B(R) = Z   B(l) + G = I   Z    V(I,J) x C(I,J) + G
             1=1            1=1 J=l
     This value may be related to the level of water quality for the
particular recreation area with the use of the pollution index, PI=C(l).

     5.  Unit Recreation Demand for Each Use and Zone

         The unit  recreation demand for recreation use (!)  exhibited
by the population of zone (J) may be calculated as:

 ,:/ '\ — = Visitor-days per person for use (l) by the population of
 P(J)    zone (J)

         The unit  recreation demand may be used to estimate the
recreation demand  at the water body at a new water quality (Pollution
Index) in an interspatial comparison with another nearby water body
at a different water quality.  If differences  h physical characteristics
and degree of crowding of the recreation areas are compensated by
appropriate weighting factors for each use  (l).  The compensated unit
recreation demand should reflect changes in water quality, as
illustrated in the following paragraph.

         Consider a recreation area, 2, with water quality PI = C(2),
differing from that of the first recreation area, 1, PI = C(l).  The
potential recreation demand for recreation area 2 at a pollution index
which corresponds  to that cf area 1, PI = C(l) may be estimated by
assuming that the compensating unit recreation demand as recreation use
in visitor-days per person, for use (l) and zone  (J) ,  is the same for
both recreation areas when their pollution  indices are equal.  That is,

when           PI = C(l)  = C(2)


thrn  V(I.J)    (2) =  V(I.J)  (1)
     ~
and V(I,J)     (2) =         (1) x P(J)  (2)
                      P(J)

and potential total use benefits for recreation use (l) become:

                   20
     B (I)   (2)  = E    V(I,J)    (2) x C(I,J)
                   J=l

and potential total recreation use benefits at recreation area 2 are:
                               -61-

-------
                12
B(R)   (2)   =  Z   B(l)   (2) +  G(2)  =
                1 = 1

       12  20
       Z   Z    V(I,J)   (2)  x C(I,J)  + G(2)
       1=1 1=1
                     -62-

-------
                            SECTION VI

                   WITHDRAWAL WATER USE SURVEY


     The withdrawal water use survey will  attempt  to  evaluate  the
benefits arising from uses which involve the withdrawal  of water
from a lake or stream.  These withdrawal uses will  include muni-
cipal water supply, industrial water supply  and  agricultural and
farmstead water supply.

     A.  Municipal Water Supply

     1.  Data Collection for the Municipal Water Use  Survey

         The writers recommend that in  order to  determine the  water
quality benefits assignable to a given  body  of water  for municipal
water supply the following data should  be  gathered  for  the municipalities
in the study area;

        a.  Local Water Uti1ities
            Locate all municipal  and private water utilities  in  the
study area and their sources of water supply, giving  the  exact
location of the water intake.

        b.  Present Water Demand

            For each utility determine the total  annual water usage,
the annual average daily water usage, the annual  peak hourly  water
usage and the total number of customers served.

        c.  Present Water Treatment
            Describe the extent of water treatment  being  practiced by
completing the checklist shown in Table VI.

        d.  Annual Cost of Water Treatment
            Determine the total  annual  cost of water treatment  for each
utility.  Do not include the cost of collection and distribution  unless
special equipment is required due to the nature or location  of  the
treatment plant.  Include the follaving costs:

     (A)  Capital costs composed of principal  and interest payments.
     (B)  Constant costs composed of labor, taxes and insurance.
     (C)  Costs directly proportional  to plant capacity composed  of
maintenance of structures, equipment and grounds.
     (D)  Costs directly proportional  to production composed of chemicals,
electric paver, gas  oral for heating,  and operational  labor.
                                  -63-

-------
                              Table VI



                   The Extent of Water Treatment
Lake or River Reach
Municipal Water Utility


Location of Water Intake


Total Annual Water Usage
Annual Peak Daily Water Usage


Total Customers Served
Extent of Water Treatment


	None


	DJ s i n feet i on


           Prechlorination
          _Postchlori nation


          _Chemical dosage (Ibs per mg)  (1)


           Calci urn hypochlori de Ca (OClK



           Sodium hypochlorite NaOCl
    JTurbidity Removal



     	Chemical  Coagulation



          	Coagulants added (dosage in Ibs  per mg)



               	Alum Al. (SO.)_.18H00
               	       L    H .3    /


               	Ferric Chloride FeCl_
                                        j
(1)   One Ib per mg (pound per million gallons)  equals  0.1198 milligrams  per

     1 i ter.
                                   -64-

-------
                     Table  VI  (Cont.)
      Ferric Sulfate  Fe0(SO.)
                       2    M
      Ch
lorinated copperas  (Fed   + Fe-(SO,),)
      Aluminum chloride  AICI,
                            3
      Sodium aluminate  NaAICL
     —                      L
      Activated alum (with  silica  Si00
     —                               2
	Black  alum (with  activated  carbon)



_pH  Adjustment



	Downward (dosage  in  Ibs  per mg)



    	Sulfuric acid H_SO,




          Carbon Dioxide CO,,
          Hydrochloric acid  HCI



          Sodium aluminate NaAlO,
     JJpward (dosage  in  Ibs  per  mg)



     	Hydrated  lime  Ca(OH)2
          Caustic  soda  NaOH
          Soda  Ash  Na0CO_
     	           2   3



          Sodium bicarbonate  NaHCO_
     	                        3



     _Materials  to  add weight  to  floe  (dosage  in  Ibs  per mg)



     	Floe  clays  (bentonite,  Kaolinite)



          Powdered  limestone  CaCO_
 Sedimentat ion
 Solids  Contact  Clarifier
 Sand  Fi1ter



                                -65-

-------
                          Table VI  (cont.)


          Slow
          _Rapi d

          	Filter media depth, inches (2)
              Anthracite depth, inches
              Quartz sand depth, inches
         	Garnet sand depth, inches

         _P res sure filters

          Number of fi 1 ters
          Area per filter, square feet (3)
          Design filtration rate, gallons per square foot per minute
    _D i atomaceous earth filter

     	Filter aid used (ibs per mg)

     	Filter area, square feet
    _Mi crost rai ner

     	Screen area, square feet

     	Screen size, microns

          	25 u

          	35u

               50u
(2)  One inch  equals  2.5^ centimeters.
(3)  One square foot  equals  0.09290  square meters.
(4)  One gallon per square foot  per  minute equals  0.122 cubic meters  per
    square meter per minute.
                                    -66-

-------
                         Table VI (Cont.)
Soften!ng-Calci urn Ffemoval



	Ion Exchange




     	Cation exchange resins
               Sodium chloride, NaCI, regenerant used Ibs per mg

               of f i ] tered water
          L ime-Soda
          	Lime Ca(OH)  used (Ibs per mg)




          	Soda ash Na 00, used (Ibs per mg)




Iron and Manganese Removal




	Sequestering agents  (dosage in Ibs per mg)




     	J'Calgon", sodium hexametaphosphate




     	E. D. T. A.




	Oxi dation




     	Aeration




     	Chlorine Cl  (Ibs per mg)
     ———           £.
       	Ozone 0- (Ibs per mg)




        Adjustment (dosage in Ibs per mg)




          Lime Ca (OH).
          Soda Ash Na0CO
          Caustic soda NaOH
     I on-Exchange




     	Contact Filtration




          	Pyrolusite (manganese ore, MnO«) filter
                                -67-

-------
                      Table VI  (Cont.)




      "Ripened FiIters"
           Conditioning chemicals  (Ibs  per mg)


                Ferric chloride FeCK
                Lime Ca(OH)
               -           2
     _Contact Oxidation



     	Conditioning solutions  (Ibs  per  mg)


           	Manganous  sulfate  MnSO,



           	Potassium  permanganate  KMnO,
                or Potassium chlorate  KC10,
                                          3
                or Sodium chlorate  NaClO,
                                        5
_Taste  and  Odor  Control


 	 Aeration



 	Ads orb ants


     	Activated  carbon



           	Powde red


           	Granular  filter  bed



               	Volume  of filter  bed,  cubic  feet



               	Frequency of  replacement



               	Quantity of water  filtered  between  replacements


 	Oxidants (dosage  in  Ibs per  mg)



     	S upe rch 1 o r i na t i on Cl
        —                    z.



           	Dech lori nat i on


                     Sulfur  dioxide S0«
                            -68-

-------
                          Table VI  (Cont.)
                     Sodium sulfite Na.SO-
                                      23
                     Sodium bisuTfite NaHSO

                                           3



                     Activated carbon
          Chlorine dioxide C100
         —                    z
         _Potassium permanganate KMnO,
          Ozone 0.
Source:  Rand, 1968
                                     -69-

-------
          These  values should be obtainable from records of the
water  utility.   Call  the  total annual cost of water treatment DW.

          e.   Cost of  Changing Suppl ies

              Determine if awater utility has been forced to go to
an  alternate  source of water supply due to degradation of the
quality of  the body of water under study.  If so, determine the
additional  costs incurred by going to this alternate source.  In-
clude  the costs  of collection, treatment, and transmission and
estimate  the  annual loss  incurred by forced abandonment of the
initial collection, treatment and transmission facilities.  Include
only that portion of  the  costs for the new facility which will
provide a supply comparable in quantity and quality to the original
supply prior  to  contamination.  Call the cost of going to an
alternate source AS.

     2.   Data Uti1ization for the Municipal Water

          For  the lake or stream under study, determine the annual
municipal withdrawal water use benefits by directly summing the
following values:

     B(M) = DW + AS

where one or  more municipalities actually use the water body as a
source of supply.  If the water body is not used as a source of supply
but could be  if  it were not for degraded quality then the annual
municipal withdrawal water use benefits may be estimated as:

     B(M) = AS

     B.   Industrial  Water Supply

     1.  Benefits to  Industrial  Water Users
         I neonsidering the damages incurred by industries using
water of degraded quality Kneese (1968:9) has found that

         industrial costs turnout to be surprisingly insensitive
         to water quality within comparatively wide ranges - es-
         pecially in regard to aspects of quality that are usually
         influenced by prior use and discharge of effluents.
         Sensitivity is greater to pollutants which in most cases
         are of natural origin, such as chlorides and magnesium.  One
         important reason for the comparative insensitivity is that
         the vast proportion of industrial  water use is  for purposes
         that can readily accomodate low quality - cooling for instance,
         A  second reason is that the really sensitive processes (high
         pressure boi leis for example)  ordinarily need water of such
         quality that  extensive treatment is necessary if any kind of
         river water is used; water distinctly low quality can be
         used with only minor incremental costs.   High pressure boiler
                                   -70-

-------
          feed water must be distilled and the cost of distillation
          is not particularly sensitive to the quality of intake
          water.  The moral of this is that not much pollution
          control can be justified b/ benefits to industrial  users.

          In order to determine the benefits which  would accrue to
 industry with a decrease in water pol lution it will be necessary
 to establish a profile of industrial water users close to the
water resource, then determine the actual  costs of water treatment
 and estimate the damages due to corrosion, scaling, and other
effects.

          The writers believe that only the costs  of industrial
water treatment necessary to produce a water of quality comparable
 to that produced by an adjoining municipal water utility should be
 included as withdrawal water use benefits.  The reasoning here is
 that many industries require large quantities of ultra-pure  process
water.  The production of this water involves costly distillation
or demineralization aid should be realistically assigned as a cost of
preparing a raw material in a manufacturing process rather than as
the cost of a normally supplied public utility.

      2.   Data Collection for the Industrial Water Use Survey

          In order to tabulate the hdustrial water treatment
costs and pollution-caused damages, the following  data should  be
collected:

          a.  Locate all industries in the study area v/hose  source
of water supply is the water body under study.

          b.  Determine the total annual water usage and list
the average and maximum daily usage of potable, process, cooling
 (both air conditioning and condenser)  boiler feed  and clean-up water.

          c.  Determine the extent of water treatment being  practiced
by completing the checklist shown in Table 16.  Also include dis-
tillation,  demineralization, and any other ultra-purification  treatment
processes.

          d.  Determine the annual cost of water treatment.  Determine
separate  costs for separate supply streams if different degrees
of treatment are provided.   Where the treatment processes are  similar
to municipal treatment calculate the costs directly.  Where  the processes
are special, but less  costly than municipal water  treatment, such as
corrosion,  scale and slime control, include these  costs directly.  Where
ultra-purification processes are used include the  costs for  a  municipal
plant to  supply a comparable quantity of water.  Include in  annual
treatment costs,  the costs  of debt retirement, taxes, insurance, labor,
maintenance, chemicals, power,  and heating fuel.

          These values should becbtained directly  from industrial plants
or a treatment cost index may be derived for each  industrial use, and
then total  uses and costs projected from a sample  of establishments.
                                 -71-

-------
 Call  the  total annual cost of industrial water treatment IW.

           e.  Determine the annual corrosion, scaling, and other
 damages incurred by  industries which may be attributed to degraded
 quality of the source and are not  included in water treatment
 costs.  These damage values may be considered negative benefits.
 Do  this by direct quest ion ing of the individual industries.   Call
 this  value ID.

      3.   Data Utilization for the  Industrial  Water Use Survey

          For each water body under consideration in the study area
 determine the water quality benefits for industrial water use by
 summing as follows:

      B (Q)  =  IW +  ID

      C.  Agricultural and Farmstead Water Use Survey

      1.   Beneficial Agricultural and Farmstead Uses of Water

         Water is used on individual farmsteads by the human farm
 population for drinking, food preparation, bathing, aid laundry;
 for washing of fruits and vegetables in preparation for sale; in  the
 production of marketable milk; for livestock  watering and for ir-
 rigation of crops.   Irrigation is the largest, single-purpose
 beneficial consumptive use of water in agriculture.  About  three-
 fourths of the water use in agriculture comes fromsurface supplies.
 Most  individual  farmstead supplies come from  deep wells.   Damages
 to uses include illness of livestock due to water-borne disease or
 excess minerals,  crops suffering from high salinity of irrigation
water, contamination of milk and food crops by polluted water
 rendering the produce unsaleable, and danger  to the health  of the
 farm  family.

     The Subcommittee for Agricultural  Uses of the National  Technical
Advisory Committee  on Water duality (FWPCA, 1968:126)  states that:

     Water for use  by the human  farm population,  for washing and
     preparation  of raw farm products for marketing, and for dairy
     sanitation  should be potable as a minimum requirement.

     The  Interim  Report of the National  Technical Advisory  Committee
on Water Qaulity  points out the  economic importance of farm water
quali ty.

     Effects  of water quality deterioration or the impact of low
     quality  supplies on  agriculture are commonly insidious  rather
     than  dramatic.   Even relatively small-scale  changes  may result
     in large economic consequences because of the shear size of
     the  activity involved (FWPCA, 196?:  Olive 5).

     The  Committee  further states that:

     The  raw  water  supply available to farmers must be of such


                                -72-

-------
     quality that it can be used in the raw state or be made
     acceptable for farmstead use with minimum treatment such as
     disinfection, filtration, and/or softening.   Economic
     considerations alone will prohibit use of raw supplies that
     require extensive treatment to make them suitable for farmstead
     uses  (FWPCA, 1967:01ive 23).

     2.  Data Collection for the Agricultural and farmstead
water supplies may be difficult to estimate due to the difficulty
of tracing ground water contamination.  When considering a surface supply
of water such as a lake or stream, the relationship between adjoining
farm ground water supplies and pollution may be established somewhat
easier.  Where water's withdrawn directly from the surface supply
estimation of damage is less difficult.

         a.  Determine if irrigation uses of water have been damaged
or foregone by degraded water quality.  If so, estimate the annual losses
in value of crop production.  Call this value CP.

         b.  Determine if poultry and livestock watering uses have
been damaged or foregone by degraded water quality.   If so, estimate
the annual losses in value of production.  Call this value LP.

         c.  Estimate the annual damages to farmstead water supplies
caused by contamination of the initial supply and its relation to
the surface source in question.  Use the cost of developing an
alternate supply such as going from a surface supply to a well supply
in obtaining "city water",  in drilling deeper wells, or in the purchase
of home disinfection or filtration units.  Call this value DS.

         d.  Determine the annual damages caused by microbial
contamination to milk due to contaminated water.   Use the market
value of the milk which has been condemned.  Call this value MK.

     3.  Data Utilization for the Agricultural and Farmstead Water
         Use Survey

         For the water body in the study sum the agricultural and
farmstead water use benefits as follows:

         B.(A)  = CP + LP + DS + MK

     D.  Data Calculation for the Withdrawal Water Use Survey

         Determine the total annual withdrawal water use benefits
by summing the results of the municipal water survey, the industrial
water use survey, and the agricultural and farmstead water use survey
as follows:

          B(WI)  = B(M)  + B(Q)  + B(A)
                                   -73-

-------
                                Section VII
                        Waste Water Disposal Survey

 Benefits of Municipal and Industrial Wastewater Disposal
      The privilege to discharge an untreated or partially  treated  municipal  or  in-
 dustrial wastewater effluent to a lake, stream or river which  dilutes  it  and carries
 it away has a definite value to the waste dischargers.  While  the  waste may  create
 noxious problems for those water users downstream, the  upstream discharger is rid of
 his waste at little cost and takes an "out-of-sight-out-of-mind"  attitude.

      Economists have defined as external diseconomies  those  costs  which an industry
 has avoided by freely using a natural resource without  payment.  The  free industrial
 use of the pollution-carrying capacity of a stream without consideration  for other
 possible stream uses serves as one excellent example of an external diseconomy.

       The federal and state governments have attempted  to  consider the needs of the
 downstream water user by setting quality standards for  the stream  as  a whole or for
 the effluent which is discharged to the stream.   The Ohio  River  Valley Water Sanitary
 Commission (ORSANCO)  has established minimum conditions which  are  applicable to
 all waters at all places and at all times within their  jurisdiction.

       Smith (I968b)  points out that the costs  of wastewater  treatment  are highly
 dependent on the design  capacity of the plant.   Considering  different  degrees of
 waste  treatment, a waste flow of 10 mgd (37,850  cubic meters per day)  which  would
 originate form an approximate population of 75,000 persons  (130  gallons (492 1.) per
 capita per day)  would cost $650 per day to treat with primary  treatment,  $1100  per day
 to treat  with secondary  activated sludge treatment, and approximately  $1500  per day to
 treat  with a form of tertiary treatment such as  lime coagulation and sedimentation or
 sand filtration  followed by chlorination.

       Waste disposal  benefits which accrue to  the dischargers, both industrial  and
 municipal,  of untreated  or partially treated wastewater may be estimated  to  be  the
 total  annual cost  required to achieve  waste  treatment necessary  to meet minimum stream
 or effluent standards.   The cost between the existing level  of treatment  and the level
 of the  minimum standard  may be considered a present benefit  to the discharger.  The
 standards  presently  reflect the subjective hierarchy of beneficial water  uses as
 determined by the  governmental  agency  responsible  for controlling  pollution  and thus
 may  be  used to estimate  the importance  of waste  disposal with respect  to  other  used.

 Data Collection  for  the  Wastewater  Disposal  Survey

       In  order to  determine  the  benefits  of  wastewater  disposal  it will be necessary to
 determine  the  optimum quality standard  for  the stream or effluents to  be  discharged
 to  the  stream.   The level  of waste  treatment  for those wastes being discharged  to
 the water body should be determined by  collecting  the following  data:
 1.   Local Wasterwater Disposal  Practices

      Survey  the basin tributary  to  the  lake or  stream being studied and  locate munici-
pal  and idustrial wastewater  outfalls.   Determine  the quantity of wastewater being
 discharged  and describe  its  origin  as sanitary sewage, industrial  process water or
 cooling water.  Describe  the  extent  of wastewater  treatment being  practiced  by  com-
pleting the  checklist shown  in  Table VII.

2.   Costs  for  Additional Wastewater Treatment

      Estimate the total  annual  costs  for each municipal and industrial wastewater
discharger  ao as to provide  the essential additional wastewater treatment to


                                         74

-------
meet minimum standards.  For  industrial wastewater treatment include
the wastewater  reduction techniques such as process changes, water
reuse, counter-flow circulation of rinse water, timed sprays and
quick shutoff valves.   Include the cost of debt retirement, taxes,
insurance,  labor, maintenance, chemicals, power and heating fuel.
Cal 1 this value V/T.

3.  Treatment to Remove Toxic Wastes

     Identify any effluent sources which contribute highly toxic, high
temperature, or radioactive materials to the lake or stream.  Estimate
the annual  cost of treatment  to completely remove these substances.
Cal1 this value TE.

k.  Soil Conservation Costs

     Determine  the annual costs of soil conservation practices needed
to prevent  sheet erosion and  consequent silting of streams and lakes.
Call this value SC.

5.  Costs for Interceptor Sewers

     Determine  the annual costs for interceptor sewers required  to
collect discharges from outfalls which presently discharge to receiving
waters.  Include costs of debt retirement, cleaning and maintenance
costs,  and  pumping costs if the interceptor is a forced main.  Obtain
these estimated values from the managing utility.  Call this value  IS.

6.  Costs of V/ater Quality Surveillance

     Determine  the annual costs of water quality surveillance required
by regulating authorities to maintain standards.  Include the costs of
sampling and testing of waters, both manually and automatically, and
the administrative and legal expenses incurred in enforcement proceedings.
Obtain this information from  local and state health departments, the
U.S.  Geological  Survey and local sanitary districts.  Call this  value
WQ..

7.  Costs of Low Flow Augmentation

     Determine  if low flow augmentation is to be practiced on the stream.
If so,  estimate the annual  costs of storage necessary to provide planned
low flow releases.  Cal1 this value LF.

8.  Costs of In-stream Aeration

     Determine  if in-stream aeration is to be practiced during periods of
low flow.   If so,  determine the annual costs for equipment and operation.
Call  this value SA.
                                 -75-

-------
                             Table VII




           Checklist of the Extent of Wastewater Treatment
 Lake  or  River  Reach
 Municipality or  Industry




 Locati on
Outfall  Location
Waste  Flow  (gallons  (3-785 liters) per day)




     Origin                                Average          Maximum




          Sanitary Sewage                  	          	




          Cooling Water                    	          	




          Process Water
Drainage Basin
Year Plant Constructed
Year Latest Major Improvements




Extent of V/astewater Treatment




	None




	Waste Treatment Units




     	Preliminary Units
               Bar screen and screen chamber
              _Comminutor




              JDverflow and bypass diamber




               Grit chamber and washer
               Parshal1  flume flow measuring
                                 -76-

-------
                 Table VI I  (Cont.)






_Primary Units (20% to 40%  BOD removal)




 	Plain settling




 	Settling tank with mechanical  sludge collection




 	Imhoff tank




 	Lagoon




 	Septic tank




_lntermed!ate Units (kO% to 70% BOD  removal)




      Chemical feed and flocculation
      Modi fied aeration
 	Lagoon




_Secondary Units (70% to 90% BOD removal)




 	Standard rate trickling filter




 	High rate trickling filter




 	Super rate trickling filter




 	Two stage trickling filter




 	Activated sludge,  conventional  plug  flow




 	  Extended aeration  activated sludge
 	Contact stabilization  activated sludge




 	Sand filter




 	Lagoon




JTertiary Units  (greater than 90% BOD removal)




 	Sand filter




 	Lagoon




 	Chemical  precipitation
                          -77-

-------
                 Table VI I  (Cont.)






_Ch lorinat ion or Disinfection Units




 	P rechlori nation




      Post-chlorination
      Ozone
      Radi ati on
_Disposal  of Liquids




 	Discharge to surface waters




 	Tile field to ground waters




 	Seepage pit or cesspool  to ground waters
      Sand filter to ground waters




      Irri gation
jSludge Handling Units




 	Preliminary Units




      	Holding




      	Th i cken i ng




      	Degri tti ng




      	Chemical  Addition




_Di gestion  Uni ts




      	Anaerobic digestion  (separate  digester)




      	Anaerobic digestion  (imhoff)




           Wet  oxidation  (Zimmerman  process)
           Fluidized  bed  incineration
          Chemical  oxidation
                         -78-

-------
                 Table  VI I  (Cont.)
JDewatering Units




 	Drying beds




 	Lagoons
      Vacuum fi1tration
      Centri fuge
 	Flash  drying




_Disposal  of Sludge




 	Burial,  including  sanitary  land fill




 	I ncineration




 	Barge  to sea




 	To public as  soil  conditioner
                           -79-

-------
C.  Data Utilization for the Wastewater  Disposal  Survey

     Let the wastewater disposal  benefits  be  equal  to the sum of
the follaving i tems:

     B(WD)  = WT  + TE  + SC  + IS  +  WQ + LF + SA
                                  -81-

-------
                           SECTION VIII

                    BORDERING LAND USE SURVEY

Water Quality Effects on Land Values

     The value of property bordering a lake or a stream is  definitely
affected by the quality of water.  This  effect is most telling on
riparian owners using the properties for recreation and residential
purposes, but effects also extend to commercial, agricultural  and
industrial properties.

     Nemerow (1966:21) has aptly expressed the relation between
bordering property value and water quality.

     The public has learned through experience that water pol-
     lution can make their adjoining land less desirable
     and therefore lower in value.  Elimination of obnoxious
     orors, hazardous swimming, and unsightly streams  causes
     attractiveness which promotes increased property  values;
     the local  governments are able to assess these properties
     at a higher value and thus provide  more tax revenues for
     the local  river basin community.  The increases in land
     values and tax revenues are direct  benefits of waste
     treatment.

     In determining the effect of water  quality on the value of
bordering property for a given use, the  per acre market value  of
shoreline property should be compared  with the per acre market value
of near-by non-shoreline property.  The  difference in  these per
acre values reflects the unit benefits or damages of the shoreline
location.  Total  benefits or damages may be calculated by multiplying
the number of acres of shoreline property by the per acre benefits
or damages.  The inland non-shoreline  property selected for comparison
may be difficult to choose since it should be far enough removed
from the water body to not reflect changes in value with changes in
water quality,  but it should be near enough to the water body  to be
considered competatively by a potential  purchaser.  It also should
be located in the same taxation division as the shoreline property
so that its value may be judged by the same real estate assessors.

Data Collection for the Bordering Land Use Survey

     In order to measure the changes in  property values due to water
pollution it is suggested that the following information be gathered:

     1.  Real  Estate Map

         Obtain a small  scale map of the area surrounding the  lake
or stream.   A tax map of the area is the ideal map to be used  but
local  real  estate organizations or town, city or county public works
                                 -83-

-------
 department should also have satisfactory  maps  showing  all  streets
 and housing developments.

      2.   Tax Assessed Property  Valuations

          Consult local  real  estate  property  tax  records, which
 are held by county cr city  governments.  List all  properties which
 border the lake or stream.   This  can  usually be  done since the
 tax records identify the boundary property with  the'lake or stream
 being a  boundary line.  Classify  the  property  according to the
 system established by the  local taxation  authority.  Table VIII shows
 the real property coding system prescribed by  the New  York State
 Board of Equilization and  Assessment.   Include the  location of the
 property by street address,  the character of the  property  according
 to the coding system, the  linear  dimensions  of the  property in feet,
 the number of acres  contained  in  the  parcel, the  number of feet of
 shorelines frantage,  the taxation division in  which the property
 is  located,  the assessed unimproved or  land  value of the property
 and the  assessed improved  or full value of the property.  List this
 data in  a table similar in  format to  Table IX.

      3.   Comparison  Assessed Values for Non-shorelines Property

          Obtain from the tax records, information similar to that
 contained in  Table IX for  non-shoreline property  removed from the
 lake or  stream.   Collect sample data  for comparison on all property
 types  which border the water body in  each taxation  division.  Collect
 a sample of a  size such that a  valid  comparison of  assessed per acre
 values for shoreline  and non-shoreline property may be made.

      A.   Equalization Rates

          Determine the equalization rate for each taxation division in
 the  study.  The  equalization rate in New York  State is the ratio of
 the  assessed  value of real  property to the full value of the property.
The  equalization  rate for each  town in the county is determined from
 an  analysis of  property sales in the  town for  the current year, by a
County Tax Equalization Board which is composed of experienced property
assessors.  Tentative equalization rates are set  by the state with the
 final  rate being set by the County legislature or Board of Supervisors.

      If,  for a  given  town,

                P/S = C

where     P = the  assessed value of property sold during the current
              year.

          S = the  sale price of property sold  during the current year.

          C = the equalization  rate;

-------
                              Table VIII

     Classifications and Definitions of Types  of Real  Property


              Number                  Property Description

               10             FARM - Any rural parcel  of land of more than
                              10 buildings,  primarily  used for agricultural
                              purposes and not conforming with the definition
                              of an estate.

R 1, R.        17             FARM, ABANDONED, or RURAL RESIDENCE - Include
                              all farm properties with buildings on which
                              farm operations  have ceased and land is no
                              longer used for  farm purposes.   This may in-
                              clude some rural residences with large acreage
                              on which farm operations have ceased.  If
                              buildings constitute one-fourth or less of the
                              value of the land classify as "rural land vacant
                              (VL2)" or,  as  "Forest land", as the case may be.

Muck           19             MUCK FARMS - Any parcel  of one acre or more,
                              including appurtenant buildings, predominantly
                              of the soil type, known  as "Muck" which has
                              been cleared and is oow  or has been recently
                              under cultivation.

V. L.  2        15             RURAL VACANT LAND - Include all abandoned
                              agricultural land,  abandoned residential
                              property, or wasteland in rural areas which
                              is not devoted to agriculture or forests.
                              Also include sand dunes, salt marshes, rocky
                              areas and brush  land of  non-commercial tree
                              species which  are not associated with forest
                              1 and.

R. 1.           21             ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE - Including individual
                              trailers used  for residences.

Est.           27             ESTATE - Property used primarily as a residence
                              and containing at least  five acres of land with
                              a  large and luxurious residence and auxilary
                              bui1di ngs.

R. 2           22             TWO or THREE FAMILY RESIDENCE

Apt.           23             APARTMENT - Structures primarily used for
                              residential purposes and containing at least
                              four dwel1 ing  uni ts .
                                     -85-

-------
                          Table VI I I  (Cont.)
 VL 9
Com.
Number

  24



  25


  40
Resort          48
Recreational
Property
Ind.
  52
V. L. 13
Seas.
   26
        Property Description

COMBINATION -  Include buildings with retail
stores and apartment which are located in
residential areas.

RESIDENTIAL LAND VACANT - Vacant lots or
acreage located  in  residential areas.

COMMERCIAL (Over $50,000) - Business properties
usdd  primarily for retail stores, combination
stores, and dwelling units in business districts;
gasoline service stations, restaurants, clubs
                              and bars, garages and automobile showrooms
                              other buildings used primarily for retail
                              purpose.
                                                           and
SEASONAL RESORT or RECREATIONAL PROPERTY -
Include and designate only properties which
have accommodations for ten or more persons,
such as resort hotels, summer boarding houses,
skiing lodges, other commercial properties
used primarily in connection with a seasonal re-
sort and cabin or bungalow colonies used on a
seasonal basis - unless the predominant use is
in some other category, such as farms.

INDUSTRIAL - Include all industrial and manu-
facturing establishments, warehouses and whole-
sale properties, grain elevators, cold storage
plants, locker plants, coal years, oil company
bulk plants, sand and gravel pits, and any other
property with industrial characteristics.  Do
rot include quarries, mines and oil and gas wells;
also include all mills, feed mills, junk yards,
milk processing plants, cheese factories, dry
cleaning plants, laundries, newspaper printing
plants, all storage buildings usually wholesale
or manufacturing, bean elevators, grain elevators,
any building where material is processed for whole-
sale distributors, asphalt and concrete plants.

COMMERCIAL or INDUSTRIAL LAND VACANT - Vacant lots
or acreage located in urban commercial or
indust rial areas .

SEASONAL RESIDENCE - All seasonal residences such
as camps,  cottages, bungalows and other dwellings
                                 -86-

-------
                          Table VI I I  (Cont.)

Code          Number                  Property Description

                              subject to seasonal  occupation.   Do not
                              include properties where the  land contains
                              forest  land.   (This  will prevent  some  forest
                              land  from being included with  camps or other
                              seasonal  parcels.)

Pri.
For.            80            PRIVATELY OWNED FOREST  LANDS  - All  lands  of at
                              least one acre  bearing  forest  growth or  that
                              formerly  bore forest growth and are not now put
                              to same  other  use.   Include all  lands which
                              are  associated  with  forest land areas  that have
                              never conformed to any  other  classification nor
                              have value because of commercial  or industrial
                              use.  Examples  are:  rocky areas,  blow-sand, wild
                              grass along streams  and flows, bruch of  non-
                              commercial tree species, also sugar-bushes not
                              a part  of a farm.

Pri.
For.            81            PRIVATELY OWNED FOREST  LANDS  - Classified under
                              Section 13 of the Tax Law.  Include here any  tract
                              of forest or  reforested land  of  15 acres  or more
                              which has been  approved by the Conservation
                              Department of the State of New York for  the purpose
                              of classification for taxation of forest and
                              reforested land. The Board of Equlization furnishes
                              the  assessor  with exerpts from laws deal ing with
                              the  assessment  of real  property  including Section
                              13 of the Tax Law.

S.F.L.           90            STATE OWNED FOREST LAND - Include state  owned
                              forest  land located  in  the Adirondack  and
                              Catskill  forest preserves. Also  include any
                              other forest  land owned by the State of  New York.

O.S.L.           30            STATE OWNED LANDS -  OTHER THAN FOREST  -  Include
                              all state owned land other tban  forest lands.

C.F.L.           91            COUNTY  OWNED  FOREST  LAND - Land  purchased by  a
                              Board of  Supervisors for the  purpose of  reforestation
                              under section 219 of the County  Law.
                                  -87-

-------
                          Table VI I I  (Cont.)


Code          Number                  Property Description

C.  F. 8.         60           SPECIFY BY DESCRIPTIVE NAME (over $10,000)-
                              All other parcels or property not covered
                              by the foregoing authorized classifications
                              shall  be classified by descriptive name
                              such as hotel, motel, trailer courts  not
                              operated on a seasonal basis, bank and office
                              buildings, golf course, quarry,  mines, piers,
                              bulkhead, airport, fraternal organization
                              buildings, private school,  country clubs,
                              drive-in theaters, amusement parks, baseball
                              stadiums, libraries, museums, hospitals, or
                              sanitariums,  yacht clubs,  theater, bowling
                              alley,  race tracks.  Also  parking lots, rooming
                              houses, tourist homes, nursing homes,  residence
                              and office, billboards, commercial greenhouses,
                              florists, and any miscellaneous  buildings, such
                              as barns  or private garages, which would not
                              be described by some other type  of classification
                              herein.

Ut.               70          UTILITIES - Include all public utility property,
                              except  special franchises.   Any  property subject
                              to control of Public Service Commission, or
                              Federal Power Commission,  or Interstate Commerce
                              Commission.  Include oil,  pressure and gas wells
                              owned  by  Public Utility Company.

R. R.              71          RAILROADS - Include all property  owned by railroads,
Source:  New York State Board of Equalization  and Assessment,
                                     -88-

-------
                                                       Table  IX

                                               Assessed Property Values

                     Taxation  Division  (Town, City or County)	
                                                                              Year
Property Location
Street Address








Character
of Property
Class i f i cati on
by Numerical
Code








Li near
Dimen-
s i ons
Feet
(1)








Area
i n
Acres
(2)








Shore-
1 ine
Front-
age
Feet








Assessed
Unimproved
or
Land Value








Assessed
Improved
or
Full
Value








oo
(1)   One  foot  equals  0.30^8  meters
(2)   One  acre  equals  ^3,560  square  feet,
                                                      square meters or 0.^0^7 hectares

-------
                              Table X
         1968 Equalization  Rates  for Onondaga County, New York
Town
Cami 1 1 us
C i ce ro
Clay
Dewitt
Elbridge
Fab i us
Geddes
La Fayette
Lysander
Hani i us
Marcel 1 us
Onondaga
Otisco
Pompey
Sal i na
Skaneateles
Spaf ford
Tully
Van Buren
City of Syracuse
(1) Ratio of the assessed value to the full
Equalization Rate (1)
0.22
0.26
0.28
0.26
0.30
0.32
0.22
0.24
0.26
0.24
0.20
0.24
0.31
0.29
0.24
0.28
0.20
0.30
0.25
0.40
value of real property.
Source:  Mulroy,  196?



                             -90-

-------
and  it  is assumed  that the town assessors were consistent in the
relative valuations of property with no tendency to under or over-
value property owned by people living outside the area, then the
full value of a given parcel or number of parcels of property may
be estimated as:

     S=P/C

     Tendencies for town assessors to consistently undervalue or
overvalue all property in town have been equalized by this method.
Table X shows the  1968 equalization rates for Onondaga County, New
York.

C.   Data Utilization for the Bordering Land Use Survey

     I.  Property  Value Benefits or Damages at Existing Quality

         The bordering property value benefits for shoreline
property at the existing quality may be estimated by successively
calculating the differences in value of shoreline property and a
corresponding number of shoreline property and a corresponding
number of acres of non-shoreline property for each bordering land
use.  Table XI shows how this may be accomplished.  The total
assessed valuation of shoreline properties classified by the
codes in Table VI I I are listed in column (A).  Column (B) contains
the  total assessed valuation of sample non-shoreline property of
the  same classification.  Dividing (A) and (B) by the equalization
rate in column (C) gives the total full valuation of shoreline and
non-shoreline property in columns (D) and (E), respectively.
Columns (F) and (G) give the number of acres of shoreline and non-
shoreline property, respectively, which correspond to the total
full values in columns (D) and (E).  The value per acre of shoreline
property is calculated in column (H)  by dividing the total full value
of shoreline property in column (D) by the total acres of shoreline
property in column (p) .  Similarly, the value per acre ofron-shoreline
property is calculated in column (l).  The ratio of the shoreline per
acre property value to the non-shoreline per acre property value  is
formed in column  (J).  The shoreline property benefits for the given
use, are calculated in column (K) as the number of acres of shoreline
property (p) times the per acre value of non-shoreline property (I)
times the'quantity, the ratio of property values (J) minus one.
The sign of the result in column (K)  reflects benefits when it is
positive and damages when it is negative.

     The shoreline property benefits calculation in column (K) may be
clarified by considering the contents of the columns as algebraic
values.  It may be seen that

     K = F x I (J-1) = P(H-l)  = (F x H) - (F x l)=B -(F x 1)

where the value on the right hand side of the equation is the total
                               -91-

-------
                   Table XI
Calculation of Shoreline Property  Benefits
Char-
acter
of
pro-
perty














Total
Assessed
Value
of Shore-
1 i ne
Pro-
perty




A







Total
Assessed
Value of
Sample
Non-
Shore-
1 i ne
Pro-
perty


B







Equal-
ization
Rate
Decimal
Frac-
tion





C







Total
Full
Value o
Shore-
Line
Pro-
perty




D=A/C







Total
Ful 1
: Value of
Sample
Non-
Shore-
1 ine
Pro-
perty


E=B/C







rN umb e r
of Acres
of Shore-
1 i ne
Pro-
perty





F







Number of
Acres of
of
Sample
Non-
Shore-
1 i ne
Pro-
perty


G







Value
Per Acre
of Shore-
1 ine Pro-
perty






H=D/F







Value
Per
Acre
of
Sample
Non-
Shore-
1 i ne
Pro-
perty

I=E/G







Ratio
of
Shore-
1 ine
Value
Per Acre
to Non-
shore
1 ine
val ue
Border! ng
P roperty
Benef i ts
(+) or
Damages
(-)




Per Acre K=
J=H/I







Fxl (J-l)








-------
full value of shoreline property (D)  less  the value of a corresponding
number of acres of non-shoreline property, (F)  times (l);  which  is
the assumed definition of bordering property  value benefits.

     The total bordering property value benefits,  B(LT) , may  be
calculated by taking the algebraic sum of  column (K),  that is, by
adding positive values and subtracting negative values.

2.  Bordering Property Value Benefits at a New Water Quality

     The ratio of the shoreline per acre property  value to the non-
shoreline per acre property value may be calculated for a second body
of water at a new water quality for each use  classification at the
original water body.  It may be assumed that, if the original water
body achieved the new water quality,  the ratio, (J) would be  identical
with that of the second water body for the given use.   Tabulating
these new ratios and applying them in column  (K) of Table XI  will
allow the estimation of total bordering property value benefits, B
(LT), at a new water quality.

3.  Annual Bordering Property;Va1ue Benefits

     It should be noted that the property  value benefits are  the
only benefits not estimated directly  on an annual  basis.  The benefits
are considered as non-reoccuring, in  that, for a given water  quality,
the gross effect on shoreline property values may  be listed only once.
When combining these benefits with the other  annual benefits  it  will
be necessary to place them on an annual basis by dividing the  value,
B(LT),  by a specific time period in years  to  produce annual bordering
property value benefits, B(l_).  The time interval  may  be related to  the
time required to produce measurable change in water quality following
the installation of a waste treatment plant.
                                   -93-

-------
                            SECTION IX

                    IN-STREAM WATER USE SURVEY


Water Quality Effects on Other In-Stream Water Uses

     Other in-stream water uses include commercial  fishing, barge and
ship navigation, flood control and hydroelectric power generation.

     The value of damages to navigation by degradation of water
quality may vary greatly in comparison to other uses.  Extreme
pollution of navigable waterways may create many problems.  The de-
position of sludge banks in navigation channels requires expensive
dredging to keep them open to traffic.  Floating debris may damage
ship and barge hulls and propellers, and clog engine cooling systems.
This debris may also damage navigation control structures by jamming
submerged conduits and mechanisms and requiring expensive techniques
for removal and repair.  Floating oil  and grease coats hulls and
structures with black, gummy deposits  which are unsightly and increase
hydraulic friction.  These inflammables also present a danger of
catching fire on the water surface.  Corrosion damages occur to ship
and boat hulls and navigation control  structures due to low quality
water.

     Damages  generated by flooding with low quality water may be of
great significance in cases where difficult to remove residues are
deposited or water supplies are polluted.

     Water quality damages to flood control and hydroelectric power
structures should be confined mainly to corrosion of metal parts,
silting of reservoirs, blockage of intake channels  by floating debris
and loss of hydraulic capacity due to biological growths.

Data Collection for the  In-stream Water Use Survey

     1.   Commercial Fishing Benefits

         Determine the total annual value of commercially caught fish
taken from the water body under consideration.  Call this value CF.

     2.   Navigation Damages

         Estimate the annual water quality damages  to navigation
include:

     a.   The  cost of maintenance dredging of sludge banks from navigation
     channels.
     b.   The  corrosion damage costs to ship and boat hulls and engine
     cool ing  systems.

     c.   The  cost of corrosion to navigation control structures such
     as  locks, dams and conduits.
                                   -95-

-------
      d.  The  cost cf  loss of hydraulic capacity, increased friction
      and damage  to hulls caused by  infestations of slimes, worms,
      barnacles and other growth living on nutrients in the water.
      In some  cases biological growth may increase with increased
      water  quality.  Call the total annual water quality damages to
      navigation  ND.

      3.  Flood Damages

         Estimate the annual water quality damages related to flooding.
      Include  the following:

      a.  The  cost of increased reservoir storage capacity required
      to decrease the probability of flooding with low quality water.
      b.  The  value of corrosion damages to reservoirs, control structures,
      conduits and equipment.
      c.  The  value of damages of decreased hydraulic capacity through
      the silting of reservoirs, blockage of intake channels, and loss
      of reservoir capacity caused by floating debris.

         Call the annual water quality damages related to flooding FC.

      A.  Hydroelectric Power Generating Damages

         Estimate the annual damages to hydroelectric power generating
      facilities due to depressed water quality.  Include:

     a.  The generating plant damages  due to erosion of turbines and
     condui ts.

     b.  The damages  of decreased hydraulic capacity through the
     silting of reservoirs,  blockage of intake channels,  and loss of
     reservoir capacity caused by floating  debris.

         Call  the hydroelectric power generating damages  HP.

Data Utilization  for  the In-Stream Water Use  Survey

     I.  Annual  In-stream Water Use Benefits  at Existing  Quality

         Determine  the  total  annual  in-stream water  use benefits by
     summing as  follows:

         B(IS) =  CF - ND  - FC  -  HP

     Note  that the  algebraic sign  of those  values which are  damages  is
     taken  as  negative.   That  is,  a  damage  is  considered  a  negative
     benefi t.

     2. Annual  In-Stream Water  Use  Benefits  at  a New  Water  Quality
                                -96-

-------
   Determination of annual  in-stream water use  benefits  at
a new water quality involves  the estimation of  the  increased
value of commercial fishing,  CF and the decrease  in  the
navigation damages, ND,  the flood related damages,  HP.   The
new in-stream use benefits  B(lS) then may be determined  by
summing as before.
                              -97-

-------
                            SECTION  X

    MEASUREMENT OF THE TOTAL DOLLAR  BENEFIT OF WATER POLLUTION
   CQNTROL-AN EXAMPLE-ONONDAGA LAKE, ONONDAGA COUNTY, NEW YORK


     In this section the procedure for measurement  of the total
dollar benefit of water pollution control which  has been presented
in the previous chapters is  applied h  an  abbreviated form to
Onondaga Lake.

Location and Description of  Onondaga Lake

     Onondaga Lake is located in central  New York State just  north
of the center of Onondaga County and "nmediately  northwest of  the
City of Syracuse, as shown in Figure 2.   Geographically, the  lake
lies in the Limestone Belt which trends east-west and is bounded
on the south by the highlands of the Northern Appalachian Plateau
and on the north by the rolling topography of the Ontario Lake  Plain
(Berg, 1963).

     Onondaga Lake is roughly rectangular in shape  with  its  long
     axis running from southeast to  northwest.   It  has  an average
     width of approximately  one mile and  is about 4.5 miles  long.
     The lake is generally very deep with an average depth of k2
     feet and large areas from 50 to 75 feet deep  (Onondaga  Lake
     Scientific Counci1, 1966: 16).

     Onondaga Lake has a surface area  of  four square miles of 2560
acres, drains a basin of a total of  241 square miles and is  part of
the Oswego River drainage basin (New York State  Department of Health,
1951).

     The outlet of the lake  is through a  one mile  long  channel
     discharging into the Seneca River, which flows northerly and
     unites with the Oneida  River to form the Oswego River.   The
     Oswego River ultimately discharges  into Lake Ontario at  the
     City of Oswego,  (Onondaga Lake  Scientific Council,  1966:16),
     some forty miles north  of Syracuse.

     The major tributaries of Onondaga Lake are  Ley Creek, Onondaga
Creek, Harbor Brook, and Ninemile Creek.   The Ley Creek watershed
extends generally east from  Onondaga Lake and has  an area of 26.16
square miles with a total length of  the main stream of  9-5 miles.
The Onondaga Creek watershed extends south from  the southern  end of
Onondaga Lake and has an area of 102.46  square miles  with a total
length of mainstream of 27-5 miles.  The  Harbor  Brook watershed ex-
tends to the south and slightly west from the southern  end of Onondaga
Lake and has an area of 13.22 square miles with  a  total  stream  length
of 7.5 miles.  The Ninemile  Creek watershed extends west and south
                              -99-

-------
o
o

                                                     "\Tov/n of Saline    •'  U.S. Route 8
                                                      \.A..	..r
                                                    • -.  -    . .       ,      I    Ley Creek
                                                    X-\N   ;.. Liverpool      ,
                                   Tov/n of Geddes
              Tov/n of
              Skancatelcs
,-'"/•''• .' Green
/'.  •'" Lcfkes
                                                                                                        Slat e
                                                                                                        Park
                                                                                          Fiiyet Icvi 1 !e
                                                                                             Seal_e_ jT\__\\i ULS

                                                                                            0   12   3   'i

                                                                                      Figure 2

                                                                              Location of Onondaga Lake,
                                                                                      *
                                                                              Fayettevi1le , Green Lake,

                                                                              and Skaneateles Lake in

                                                                              Onondaga County, New York
              Source:   Onondacja County Department of Public V/orks,

-------
 from  the western shore of Onondaga Lake and has an area of 90.85
 square miles, with a total length of main stream of 34.3 miles
 (New  York State Department of Health, 1951.)   Included in this
 watershed at the headwaters of Ninemile Creek is Otisco Lake with
 a watershed area of 34 square m'les and a surface area of 3.47 square
 miles.

      As a part of the New York State Barge Canal System, the
 water surface elevation of Onondaga Lake is controlled by a dam on  the
 Oswego River at Phoenix, New York just north  of the confluence  of the
 Seneca and Oneida Rivers.  The low water elevation is 363 feet
 referenced to Barge Canal datum.   The maximum level of the lake
 occurred in 1936 when a flood level of 371.6  feet was recorded
 (Milovicz, 1968).  This is about  eight feet of available flood  storage
 and thus gives approximately 20,480 acre-feet of water storage
 capaci ty.

 Characteristics of Bordering Leads

      The property bordering Onondaga Lake may be generally divided
 into  four distinct segments and classified by present land uses as
 shown in Figure 3-  Segment #1 may be considered as Onondaga Lake
 Park, which extends from the Syracuse City line at Part Street, near
 the Liverpool exit of U.S. Route  81, along the northeast shore  to
 the Lake outlet.  Segment #2 may  be considered as the West Shore Park
 extending from the lake outlet at Maple Say to the mouth of Ninemile
 Creek to the Syracuse city line just south of the Allied Chemical
 Corporation docks at State Fair Boulevard.  Segment #4 may be con-
 sidered as the area located predominantly at the southern end of the
 lake  in the City of Syracuse.  The Syracuse city line cuts the  bottom
 of the lake at the southeast and  extends from Park Street at the Will
 and Baumer Candle Company to State Fair Boulevard, just south of the
Allied Chemical Corporation docks.

     Most of the land immediately bordering Onondaga Lake is government-
owned, either by Onondaga County  or New York  State.  This reflects  the
original  flood storage use of the lake.  The  Onondaga County Division
of Parks  and Conservation administers Onondaga Lake Park and the West
 Shore Park in Segments #1 and #2  respectively.

     Onondaga Lake Park runs six  miles along  the northeastern shore of
 the lake  and around its northwestern end to the Long Branch Picnic
Area, which lies across the lake  outlet from  the Willow Bay and Mud
Lock Picnic areas (Onondaga County Department of Public Works,  1967).

     A scenic parkway extends along about half of the northeast shore-
 line of the lake through Onondaga Lake Park,  connecting the City of
Syracuse  with the park entrance and the Village of Liverpool (Onondaga
Lake Scientific Council, 1966).

     The  West Shore Park is presently not open to the public and work
 is in progress to reclaim the bw-lying swampy area for park use.
                                -101-

-------
O
ro
          N.  Y.  Route
                               Vs,  N.  Y.  S. Thruwn
                                                                                          •' Ley  Crc;d;


                                                                                          )   Sc:(JinC:ll(


                                                                                              //'/I
                                                                          U.  S.  Route 8]
                                                                       Onondacja  La Ic



                                                                          Park
                                                                                                   \Harbor  Brook
                                                                                                   "
                                                                              r      .  » _
                                                                              Segment  f, 3
                                                   Njnemile  Creek
                                                                                                      City Line
                                                                                   Scale in Feet
                                                                                '•••'• — i — .-•>
       f           /A
      /V       Segment // 2   V/est

U.S.Route f>90                Park
                                          0  1000


                 Figure 3


Characteristics  of Land Bordering Onondaga Lake
                                                                                      5000
                                                                                                               10,000
        Source:  Onondaga  Lake Scientific Council  1966.

-------
     Since September of 1966, Onondaga County and Solvay  Process
     (Division of Allied Chemical  Corporation)  have been  building
     dikes for thirteen basins and filling basins with  sludge  that
     is being dredged from Onondaga Lake (Journal of the  Board
     of Supervisors, Onondaga County, 1967:  621).

     The delta which had formed at the mouth of Ninemile  Creek
     will be removed by these operations...  At  the present  time
     approximately fifty percent of the required dredging is
     completed and we are approximately one year ahead  of schedule
     on the program (Hennigan, 1968:  6).

     Bordering both Onondaga Lake Park and the  West Shore Park
are residential areas in the towns of Salina and Geddes respectively.

     New York State owns most of the lakeshore  property in  Segment  #3.
Adjoining these lakeshore lands, on the lakeside of U.S.  Route 690,
are waste beds of the Allied Chemical Corporation having  an elevation
of about seventy feet above the lake surface.  A portion  of these beds
has been purchased by New York State as parking lot areas for  the New
York State Fairgrounds which is located south of Route  690.  Further
southeastward are a Crucible Steel Corporation  parking  lot  and Allied
Chemical Corporation wharf facilities.

     The Segment #k area at the southeast end of the lake contains
industrial and commercial properties.  These lakeshore  lands  include
the Syracuse Barge Canal Terminal, tank farms for the storage  of
petroleum products, the Onondaga County Metropolitan Waste  Treatment
Plant, the Niagara-Mohawk Power Corporation natural gas distribution,
a scrap metal yard, and a Penn-Central Railroad right-of-way.

The Existing Water Pol lution Prob lem

     The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (FWPCA,  1966b)
reports that Onondaga Lake is the most grossly  polluted lake in  the
entire Lake Ontario Basin.

     Hennigan (1968a:l)  lists the four major problems affecting  Onon-
daga Lake as:
     1.  The sewage plant effluents entering the lake and its
         tributaries.
     2.  The wet-weather over-flows from Onondaga Creek and Harbor
         Brook intercepting sewers.
     3.  Industrial wastes produced on the watershed.

     4.  Organic deposits on or immediately above the lake bottom
         in a state of anaerobic decomposition.

     Sewage plant effluents now entering the lake include approximately
forty million gallons per day from the Metropolitan Waste Treatment
                                -103-

-------
 Plant  which  have  received  the  intermediate treatment of chemically-
 aided  settling; ten  million gallons per day from the Ley Creek
 Treatment  Plant where  the  treatment consists of an overloaded bio-
 logical  process;  and lesser quantities from the Villages of Camillus
 and  Marcellus  on  the Ninemile  Creek watershed.

     The Onondaga Creek and Harbor Brook  intercepting sewers and
 designed to  carry only twice the dry weather flow and during storms
 the  excess flow is spilled from sixty-nine overflow points into
 Onondaga Creek and Harbor  Brook.

     These overflows,  although they occur only two to three
     percent of the  time are,  in our opinion, a major source
     of  pollution of the lake, since the  untreated discharges
     are as  much  as  ten times  as a strong as ordinary domestic
     sewage  (Hennigan, 1968a:2).

     The main  contributors of  industrial wastes to Onondaga Lake
 are  those  industries tributary to Ley Creek and those which border
 the  lake on  the east and southwest.  On the southwest, the
 Industrial Chemicals Division  of Allied Chemical  Corporation dis-
 charges  considerable amounts of inorganic solids  in its process
 effluents, 100 mgd of heated cooling water and sanitary wastes.
 The  Crucible Steel Corporation discharges 5-5 mgd of metal -
 bearing  wastes to the  lake.  On Ley Creek and the east shore of the
 lake are over  100 industries producing wet wastes.

     The organic  bottom deposits in Onondaga Lake are the result of
 close  to a century of discharge of waterborne wastes from the homes,
 businesses and industries of Syracuse.  This organic sludge has
 accumulated  to "estimated depths of twelve feet in some areas
 (Onondaga Lake Scientific Council, 1966:19)."  Until 1925 the un-
 treated  wastes of the City of Syracuse were discharged into Onondaga
 Lake via Onondaga Creek,  Harbor Brook or an outfall sewer.  From
 1925 to  I960, with some periods of interruption,  these wastes have
 received intermediate treatment at the Metropolitan Waste Treatment
 Plant  (Onondaga Lake Scientific Council,  1966).

 Measurement  of Recreation Use Benefits

     All of  the present water-oriented recreation uses of Onondaga
 Lake are related  to activities  occurring at Onondaga Lake Park.
The benefits  of recreation  uses at Onondaga lake  Park are estimated
 at existing water quality.   Green Lake State Park at Fayettevi1le, New
York,  located approximately fifteen miles  east of Onondaga Lake Park
was chosen for an  interspatial  comparison  to estimate the value of
Onondaga Lake at  a higher water quality.   Green Lake surface water
 is of  relatively high quality when compared to that of Onondaga Lake
and the  lake  supports a large amount of swimming  and some boating.
 Fishing  benefits  at higher  water quality are estimated by an inter-
 temporal  study of  fishing demand.
                              -104-

-------
o
VJ1
                                                 Table XI I

                      Recreation Benefits of Onondaga Lake at Existing Water duality
(1)
J
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
(2)
0-2
2- 4
4-6
6-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30 -40
40-50
50-150
(3)
D(J)
1
3
5
8
12.5
17.5
22.5
27.5
35
45
100 5
Total
(4)
P(J)
* 87, 2 34
='-103,438
-132,895
-78,563
52,886
49,936
76 , 1 89
73,803
157,994
261 ,490
,268,207
Visi ts
(5)
V(J)
45,912
55,504
63,280
79,676
43,315
34,844
11,091
10,061
9,719
12,804
17,960
V=384,166
(6)
A(J)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.50
(7)
T(J)
.20
.60
1.00
1.60
2.50
3.50
4.50
5.50
7.00
9.50
1.00 21.00
Annual Recreation
(8)
C(J)
.84
1.24
1.64
2.24
3.14
4.14
5.14
6.14
7.64
10.64
22.64
Benefits =
(9)
V(j)x
C(J)
38,566
68,825
103,779
178,474
136,009
144,254
57,008
61,775
74,253
136,235
406,614
1,405,792
(10)
V(J)
PW
.526
.537
.476
1.014
.819
.698
.146
.136
.062
.049
.00341
  (1)  Zone number (2) Mileage range of zone margins. (3) One way distance from park to center of zone, in
  miles, (4) I960 ("1967) population of each zone by individuals.  (5) Annual attendance from each zone in
  visits.  (6)  Estimated travel  associated cost per visit from each zone in dollars. (7)  Travel cost in
  dollars per visit to visitors  from zone J, K = 10 cents,  per mile.  (8)  Total cost per visit in dollars
  to visitors from zone J.  (9)   Annual recreation benefits in dollars.  (10) Unit  recreation demand.

-------
                               Table XI I I




                    Onondaga Lake Annual  Attendance




                      for Water-Related Activities
Use
Pi cni c Areas
Wi 1 low Bay
Mud Lock, Cold
Spri ngs
Long Branch
Hiawatha Point
Off Highway
Picnic Subtotal
Girl Scout Day Camp
Area
National Rowing
Association Regatta
Yacht Basin (Marina)

1966

60,276
51,933
33,993
56,405
122,178

37,927
27,900
15,245
Visits
1967

85,595
33,361
33,334
73,850
65,698

31,892
22,500
16,250

1966-
1967
Average
(4)

72,935
42,647
33,633
65,127
93,938
308,310
34,909
25,200
15,747
Percent
of
Total
Use
(5)






80.2
9.1
6.6
4.1
             Total         405,857



Source:   Shattuck, 1968 a:16
362,480
384,166
100.0
                                    -106-

-------
     1.  Travel Distance Zones of Visitor Origin

         Eleven concentric mileage zones of visitor origin are
delineated for Onondaga Lake with zone numbers (J)  and mileage ranges
as shown in columns (l) and (2) respectively of Table XII.  The
average one way distance in miles from the center of each zone D
(J), is listed in column (3).  For example, J equals zone 3 for a
concentric circular areas with boundaries having radii  of 4 and 6
miles and with an average oneway distance from the center of the
zone D(3) equal to 5 miles.  Zone number 11 is assumed to have a travel
distance range of 50 to 150 miles with a A(ll) of 100 miles.  Similar
zones and distances are determined for Green Lake.

     2.  Population Determination of Each Zone

         The population P(J) of each zone of origin (J) for Onondaga
Lake is listed in column (4) of Table XII.  The population is
determined by using a federal government census map having townships
and villages plainly marked.  Concentric circles were drawn about
the main park entrance having radii  equal to the mileasges in column
(2).  The population of a village or town is distributed to given
zones in proportion to the percent of total village or town land area
in that zone.  For example, the Town of Cam!11 us, less the Village
of Camillas is found to have a 1967 population of 34,0&9.  It is
estimated that 20 percent of the total town land area falls in zone
number 2 and 40 percent each in zone numbers 3 and 4.  The population
is thus distributed as follows:  6,813,  (calculated from 0.20 x
34,069) to zone number 2 and 13.628,  (calculated from 0.40 x 34,069)
to zone numbers 3 and 4.  The population of each zone is then determined
by summing the distributed amounts from each village and town.  For
example, the zone 3, (1967 census) population is computed to be 132,895.
Similar calculations are made for Green Lakes State Park, as shown in
Table XVI I I .

     3.  Annual Recreation Attendance

         The 1966 - 1967 average annual attendance for water-related
activities at Onondaga Lake Park totaled 384,166 and is shown in
Table XIII.   It should be noted that  the 1966 - 1967 average total
attendance was 700,453 with the more  than 300,000 additional visits
to the French Fort and Salt Museum historic sites and to watch and
participate in atheletic events held  at Griffin Field  (Shattuck,  1968a).
These additional visits were for non-water-oriented recreation and
are not considered in the benefit analysis.  Let the total annual
visits (V)  equal 384,166.  Annual attendance for water-oriented
recreation at Green Lakes State Park was 451,213 (Holden, 1967).

         The origin, by county, of a  sample of visitors  to both
Onondaga Lake Park and Green Lakes State Park is determined by a
license plate survey taken of cars parked in the parking  lots during
six days in August, 1968 as shown in Table XIV.  It is assumed that
                               -107-

-------
                               Table XIV

            License Plate Survey" of the Origin of Visitors

            to Onondaga Lake Park and Green Lakes State Park
County of Origin
Onondaga
Onei da
Madison
Oswego
Cortland
Cayuga
Wayne
Monroe
Seneca
Chenango
Tompki ns
Broome
Out of State
Others
Total
Onondaga
Lake Park
Sample
Si ze
(Cars)
2426
158
49
124
35
59
48
42
21

15
17
386
298
3680

Percent
of
Total
65.93
4.30
1.34
3.36
.96
1.61
1.32
1.14
.57

.41
.45
10.50
8.11
100.00
Green
State
Sample
Size
(Cars)
3732
944
452
335
109
98
102
217

97
33
96
382
234
6831
Lakes
Park
Percent
of
Total
54.64
13.82
6.62
4.90
1.59
1.43
1.50
3.18

1.42
.48
1.40
5.60
3.42
100.00
;VThe survey was conducted on the following dates,  August,  3,  4,  6,  8,  11
and 13, 1968 which were three weekends  and three weekdays.

Source: Yopps,  1968:119
                                    -108-

-------
                              Table XV

            Attendance Distribution by Zone at Onondaga

               Lake Park and Green Lakes State Park
                   Attendance
                  Di stribution
                  (in percent
                    of total)
                                       Estimated  1966-1967
                                       Average Attendance
                                       From  Each  Zone  in
                                       Visits V(J) = %  x V
Zone
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Onondaga
Lake
11.95
14.45
16.47
20.74
11.28
9.07
2.89
2.62
2.53
3-33
4.67
Green
Lakes
2.15
3.24
1.19
20.63
23.51
9.36
5.44
5.59
15.88
1.97
11.04
Onondaga
Lake
45,912
55,504
63,280
79,676
43,315
34,844
11,091
10.061
9,719
12,804
17,960
Green
Lakes
9,688
14,606
5,356
93,103
106,095
42,215
24,555
25,218
71,666
8,911
49,800
Total
100
100
384,166
451,213
                                   -109-

-------
                                                   Table XV!
o
i
                      Weighted Average Base Cost per Visit for Water-Oriented Recreation


                            Uses at Onondaga Lake Park and Green Lakes State Park


                                           Onondaga Lake Park                     Green Lakes  State  Park


Recreat i on





Si ghtsee
Sw i mm i n g
P i en i cki
Boat i ng

Uses



ing (NRA Regatta)

ng
(Onondaga Yacht Bas
Ratio of
Spec! f i c
Recreation
Use to
Total Park
Use
A
.066

.802
in,
Green Lake rowboats) .041
Camp i ng
(Day Camps)
.091
Estimated
Spec! f i c
Base Cost
per Visit
Dollars

B
1.00

0.50

3.00
0.50
Wei gh ting
Factor
Product
A x B =


C
.066

.401

.123
.046
Ratio of
Speci fie
Recreation
Use to
Total Park
Use
D

.551
.362

.032
.055
Est imated
Speci fie
Base Cost
per Visit
Dol lars

E

0.75
0.50

0.50
0.50
Weighting
Factor
Product

D x 3 =

F

.413
.398

.016
.028
                                Weighted  Average  Base Cost

                                              per Visit  R =
.636  =  $0.64
R =  .855 = $0.86

-------
             Table XVII




Travel Associated Costs  per Visit
Zone
Num-
ber





1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
One way
Distance
D(J)





1
3
5
8
12. S
17.5
22.5
27.5
35
45
100
Food
Costs
Above
At-home
Costs
B

Dol lars
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.25
.25
Hotel and
Motel
Costs $10.00
person /
day
C

Dol lars
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tourist
Goods &
Servi ces





0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.25
Travel
Assoc-
iated
Costs
A(J) =
2(b) +
C+D
Dollars
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.50
1.00
                  -111-

-------
 this  sample  is  representative of those visitors participating in
 water-oriented  recreation even though the sample includes visitors
 to  the historic sites and atheletic fields.

        The  percentage distribution of visitors by county is
 further distributed to towns within a county in direct proportion
 to  the ratio of the town population to the county population.
 These values are distributed to each zone in direct proportion to
 the percent  of  total town land area in that zone.  Table XV shows
 the attendance  distribution by zone for Onondaga Lake Park and Green
 Lakes State  Park.  For example, for Onondaga Lake Park, of the
 total visitors  (V equals 384,166) to the Park, 63,280 (V(3)  equals
 16.47% of  384,166) are estimated to have come from zone 3.

      4. Average Recreation Participation per Visit by Use and Zone

        A  survey by direct questioning of the recreation users of
 Onondaga Lake Park was not conducted therefore it is assumed that
 the participation rates N(l,j), for picnicking, boating, day
 camping and  Regatta sightseeing are all equal to one (l) visitor-
 day per visit,  for visitors from all zones.

      5. Base Cost per Visit for Each Use

        A weighted average base cost per visit, (R), for all water-
 oriented recreation uses is estimated to be $0.64 per visit at
 Onondaga Lake Park and $0.86 per visit at Green Lakes State Park as
 shown in Table  XVI.   The specific base costs per visit for each
 recreation use  are estimated as $0.75 for swimming (Crites,  1966:52;
 Henley, 1967:438; Koenings, 1968:1); $3.00 for motor boating on
 Onondaga Lake (Crites, 1966:49; Kneese, 1968:11); $0.50 for row
 boating on Green Lake (Holden,  1967); $0.50 for picnicking (Crites,
 1966:59);  $0.50  for childrens1  day camps; and $1.00  for sightseeing
 by  spectators at the National  Rowing Association.  Regatta on
 Onondaga Lake.

     6.   Automobile Travel  Costs^

         Automobile travel  costs  (K) are estimated to be equal to
 $0.10 per mile.

     7.   Travel  Associated Costs  Per Visit

         Travel  associated costs, listed in Table XVII, are  estimated
 to  be composed of the costs of  food over at-home costs, hotel and motel
expenses  and costs for tourist gaods and services.

         Excess  food costs  are  estimated to be $0.75 for breakfast, $1.25
 for lunch  and $2.00  for dinner,  totaling to an additional  for $4.00 per
day  spent  by an  individual  for  food while traveling  over that spent at
home.
                                -112-

-------
        Overnight accomodations are estimated to be required
for trips greater than 300 miles and hotel  or motel costs  are
estimated to be $10.00 per adult per night.

        An individual is assumed to spend $1.00 per day for
tourist goods and services while traveling.

        For example, travel associated costs  A(3),  to a visitor
from zone 3 are estimated to be zero (0)  while a visitor from
zone 11 paid A(ll) equals $1.00.

     8.  Travel Costs per Visit

         Travel costs per visit T(J) to visitors from each zone (J)
are equal to twice the average cost per mile  for automobile travel
(K) times the average one way distance in miles from the center of
the zone D(J) plus the travel associated cost per visit to visitors
from each zone A(j) and are calculated in column (7)  of Table XII
as:

       T(J) = 2 x K x D(J) x A(J)                      (1)

     9 .  Total Cost per Visit for Each Zone

         The total cost per visit C(J) to visitors from each zone
(J) is equal to the weighted average base cost per visit (R) plus
travel costs per visit T(J) divided by the parti ci pation rate
N(l,J) in visitor-days per visit and is calculated in column (8)
of Table XII as:

               R + T(J)                               (2)
         Annual recreation benefits are calculated for each zone (J)
in column (9) of Table XI I.

         The annual additional cost of park maintenance and operation
G(l) for Onondaga Lake Park in 196? is estimated to be equal to
$73,624.  This is the difference between an estimated 15 percent of
the 1967 Onondaga County Department of Parks and Conservation budget
or $87,942 for park expenditures and $14,318 in reimbursements received
at Onondaga Lake Park for the rental of boat slips, picnic and
outing  reservations, concession stand leases, state aid to recreation
and other miscellaneous  income (Journal of the Board of Supervisors,
Onondaga County, 1967; Shattuck, 1968a) .

         Total annual recreation use benefits at Onondaga Lake Park
at existing water quality are obtained by summing column (9) in
Table XII and the addition of G(l)  as follows:

         [ B(R)] (1) =  E1    V(J) x C(J) + G(l) = $1,^05,792 +
                       •J = ]       $73,624 = $1,479,416           (3)
                                -113-

-------
               Table XV!II




Unit Recreation Demand for  Green Lakes




  State Park,  Fayettevi1le,  New York
Zone
Num-
ber

J
(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Mi le-
age
Range

(2)
0-2
2-4
4-6
6-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-40
40-50
50-150
One
Way
Dist-
ance
Miles
D(J)
(3)
I
3
5
8
12.5
17-5
22.5
27.5
35
45
100
Total
(I960)
(-1967)
Popula-
tion of
Each Zone
Persons
P(J)
(4)
15,875
24,574
-23,537
-'060,037
*198,148
-74,391
*58,960
90,082
323,174
81,511
5,268,207
Visits V =
Average
1966-1967
Annual
Attend-
ance from
Each Zone
Visits
V(J)
(5)
9,688
14,606
5,356
93,103
106,095
42,215
24,555
25,218
71,666
3,91)
49,8oo
451,213
Unit
Rec re-
action
Demand
Visi ts
per
V(J)/P(J)
(6)
0.610
0.594
0.228
0.582
0.535
0.567
0.416
0.280
0.222
0.109
0.00946
                   -114-

-------
                                                Table XIX

                    Recreation Benefits of Onondaga Lake at Green Lake Water Quality
(1)
}
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
(2)
b-J
2-4
4-6
6-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-40
40-50
50-150
(3)
D(J)
1
3
5
8
12.5
17.5
22.5
27.5
35
45
100
(4)
V(J)
.794
.811
.719
1.531
1.237
1 .054
.220
.205
.094
.074
.00515
Total Vi
(5)
P(J)
•-'-87,234
•-'--103,438
* 132, 895
* 78, 56 3
52,886
49,936
76 , 1 89
73,803
157,994
261 ,490
5,268,207
sits V =
(6)
V(J)
69,264
83,888
95,551
120,280
65,420
52,633
16,762
15,130
14,851
19,350
27,131
580,290
(7)
A(J)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.50
1.00
Recreat
(8)
T(J)
.20
.60
1 .00
1.60
2.50
3.50
4.50
5.50
7.00
9.50
21.00
ion Benefits
(9)
C(J)
1 .06
1.46
1.86
2.46
3.36
4.36
5.36
6.36
7.86
10.86
22.86
B(S) =
(10)
V(J)x
C(J)
73,420
122,476
177,725
295,889
219,811
229,480
89 , 844
96,227
116,729
210,141
620,215
$2,251,957
(l) Zone number.  (2) Mileage  range of zone margins.  (3)0ne way distance  from park to center of zone,  in miles.
(4) New Unit recreation demand  in visits per capita,  1.51 times  the original.   (5)  I960  (-1967) population
of each zone, by  individuals.  (6) Annual attendance  from each zone  in visits.   (7)  Estimated travel associated
cost per visit from each zone  in dollars.  (8)  Travel cost  in dollars per visit to visitors from zone J, K=10
cents per mile.  (9) Total cost  per visit in dollars  to visitors  from zone J, R  = $0.86.   (10) Annual  recreation
benefits fon dollars for each  zone.

-------
         10.   Unit Recreation Demand  for  Each  Zone

              The unit recreation  demand  in  visits  per  capita  for each
 zone is listed in column  (10)  of  Table XII  and  is  calculated  as the
 ratio of annual  visits  from each  zone, V(J),  to the  population of the
 zone P(J).  Table XVIII  shows the  unit  recreation demand  for Green Lakes
 State Park.

     11.  Onondaga Lake  Annual  Recreation  Benefits  at Green Lake Water
          Quality

          Table XIX shows  the calculation  of total  annual  recreation
 benefits of $2,251,957  for Onondaga  Lake  at Green  Lake water  quality.

          Unit recreation  demand from Green  Lake is used  to estimate
 the demand  for Onondaga Lake at Green Lake  water quality.  Comparing
.the unit recreation demands  of Onondaga  Lake  at existing  quality,
 which are shown  in column (10) of Table  XII,  with  those  of Green
 Lake, which  are  shown in  column (6) of Table XVIII, it  is  noted that
 for four zones,  the unit  recreation  demands V(3)/P(3), V(4)/P(4),
 V(5)/P(5),  and V(6)/P(6), at Green Lake  are less than  those for
 Onondaga Lake.  This  uiderscores the  fact  that the  unit recreation
 demand  is not solely  dependent upon  water quality.  The  demand
 is  affected  by other  factors such as the  physical  characteristics
 of  the  recreation area, characteristics  of  the  surrounding population
 (Dutta  and  Asch, 1966), and  the degree of over-crowding  at the recreation
 area.

          In  order to  compensate for  characteristics of the population
 within  a fifty mile radius  of the park entrance, a unit  recreation
 demand  was  calculated for a  composite of  zones  1 through  10
 and is  the  ratio of the total  visits from these zones to  the  total
 population  of these zones.   The compensated unit recreation demand
 for Onondaga Lake is  0.3522  visits per capita and  for Green Lake is
 0.3985  visits per capita.

          It  is assumed  then  that  Onondaga Lake  at  Green  Lake water
 quality will  have a unit  recreation  demand  for  each zone  that is 1.51
 times greater than it is  at  existing quality.   This  is shown  in
 column  (4)  of Table XIX,  where each  V(J)/P(J) is 1.51 times greater than
 the corresponding V(J)/P(J)  in column  (10)  of Table XII.  For example,
 V(3)/P(3) in Table XIX  equals  0.719  which is  1.51 x 0.476 from Table XII.

          In Table XIX, the  new unit recreation demand for each zone
 V(J)/P(J),  is multiplied  by  the population  of each zone  in column (5)
 to  produce  an estimate  of annual  attendance from each zone, V(J), in
 column  (6).   For example, for  zone 3, the new V(3)/P(3)  times P(3)
 is  0.719  x  132,895 or V(3) equals 95,551  visits.  Total  cost  per visit
 for each  zone C(J)  is calculated  as  before, using  the weighted average
 base cost per visit R, equal  to $0.86, from Green Lake.  This value
 is  entered  in column  (9).  Annual recreation  benefits are then calculated
                                 -116-

-------
for each zone as V(j) x C(j) and entered in column 10.   For
example, for zone 3, recreation benefits are V(3)  x C(3)  equals
95,551 x $1.86 equals $177,725.  Total  annual  recreation  benefits
for Onondaga Lake at Green Lake water quality  are  obtained by
summing column (10):

              11
       B(S) = I   V(J)  x C(J) = $2,251,957          (4)
              J=l

      12.  Annual Additional Cost of Onondaga Lake  Park Maintenance
          and Operation at Green Lake Water Quality

          It is assumed that the annual additional cost of park
maintenance and operation, G(2), at Onondaga Lake  Park at Green
Lake water quality will increase in direct proportion to  the
increased park attendance.  The present attendance is 384,166 and
the estimated new attendance is 580,290 (Table XIX, column 6).
The new annual additional  cost of park maintenance and operation
is estimated to be:


         G(2) = 580,290/384, 166  x G(l)

                  = 2.92 x $73,624 = $214,982          (5)
     13.  Onondaga Lake Annual Fishing Benefits at High Water Quality

          This researcher believes that Onondaga Lake will support
a significant amount of sport fishing use at a higher water quality
than presently exists.  The ELireau ofCutdoor Recreation (l967:B-2)
estimated that sport fishing oemand in the Lake Ontario Basin in
I960 was 3.33 visits per person per year, as shown in TableXX.  In
applying this demand, it is assumed that the percent of total individual
demand that will be satisfied at Onondaga Lake decreases with increased
distance from the lake.  Table XXI shows potential sport fishing benefits
at Onondaga Lake with high water quality.  The percent of total
fishing demand for each zone which will be satisfied at Onondaga Lake
is arbitrarily assumed in column  (4).  Applying this percentage to
the total demand of 3-33 visits per person gives the estimated unit
recreation demand in column (5).  Annual attendance from each zone
V(J), in column (7), is calculated as the estimated unit recreation
demand in column (5) times the zone population P(J) in column (6).  The
weighted average base cost per visit, R is assumed to equal $4.00
(Kinney, 1964:27)  and the total costs per visit for each zone C(J),
are calculated as before from equation (2).  Annual sport fishing
benefits are then calculated for each zone as V(J) times C(J) and are
entered in column (11).  Total annual sport fishing benefits for
Onondaga Lake at high water quality are obtained by summing column (11):
                                 -117-

-------
                              Table XX
 Demand  for Selected Water-Oriented Outdoor Recreational  Activities,
 Lake Ontario Basin, I960 (Day and Overnight or Weekend Sectors)
Acti vi ty



Water-dependent

   Swimmi ng

   Fish ing

   Boat!ng

   Water-ski i ng

   Canoeing

   Sai1i ng

   Subtotal
  Adjusted annual
Participation Rate
(Visits per Person)
    8.13

    3.33

    1.81

     .33

     .13

     .17
   13.90
Water-enhanced

   Camping                                       .56

   Picnicking                                   3-85

   Sightseeing                                  5-51

   Nature Walks                                 2.85

   Hunting                                      1-38

   Hiking                                        .k2

   Subtotal                                    14.27


Source:  Bureau of Outdoor Recreation,  1967:B-2
                                   -118-

-------
u>
                                                       Table XXI

                        Potential  Sport Fishing Benefits at Onondaga Lake at High Water Quality
(1)
J
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

(2)
0-2
2-4
4-6
6-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-40
40-50
50-150

(3)
D(J)
1
3
5
8
12.5
17.5
22.5
27.5
35
45
100


50
40
30
20
10
5
4
3
2
1
.01

(5)
V(J)
PlJ)
1.65
1.33
1.00
0.67
0.33
0.17
0.13
0.10
0.07
0.03
0.0003
Total
(6)
P(J)
86,868
98,662
121,585
60,210
52,886
49 , 1 89
76 , 1 89
73,803
157,994
261 ,490
5,268,207
Visits V =
(7)
V(J)
143,332
131 ,220
121,585
40,341
27,452
8,489
9,905
7,380
11 ,060
7,845
2,580
511,189
(8)
A(J)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.50
1.00
Fish
(9)
T(J)
.20
.60
1.00
l.6o
2.50
3.50
4.50
5.50
7.00
9.50
21.00
i ng Benef i ts
(10)
C(J)
4.20
4.60
5.00
5.60
6.50
7.50
8.50
9.50
11.00
13.50
25.00
B(F) =
(11)
C(J)x
C(J)
601 ,994
603,612
607,925
225,910
178,438
63,668
84,192
70 , 1 1 0
121 ,660
105,908
64,500
2,727,917
       (1)  Zone number. (2) Mileage range of zone margins. (3) One way distance from park to center of zone, in miles.
       (4)  Assumed percentage of individual fishing demand that will be satisfied at Onondaga Lake.  (5)  Assumed
       unit recreation demand in visits per capita, column (4) times 3.33 visits per person per year.  (6)  I960
       ("1967)  population of each zone, by individuals.   (7)  Estimated annual attendance from each zone in  visits,
       column (5)  times column (6).  (8)  Travel associated cost per visit from each zone in dollars. (9) Travel cost
       in dollars  per visit to visitors from zone J, K = $0.10 per mile. (10) Total cost per visit in dollars to
       isitors  fvom zone J, R = $4.00.   (11)   Annual fishing benefits in dollars for each zone.

-------
       11
B(F)  = £
       J-l
            V(J)  x C(J)  = $2,727,917
                                                      (6)
      14.  Total Annual Recreation Use Benefits for Onondaga Lake
          at High Water Qual I ty

          Total annual recreation use benefits for Onondaga Lake
 at high water quality are equal to the sum of the recreation
 benefits B(S), the additional costs of park maintenance and operation
 G(2), and the potential sport fishing benefits B(F), as follows:
      (2)  = B(S)  + G(2)  + B(F)

          = $2,251,  957  + $214,  982   +$2,727,917

          = $5,194,856
                                                              (7)
      15-  Annual Net Recreation Use Benefits at Onondaga Lake with
          Increased Water Quality

          The annual net recreation use benefits at Onondaga Lake
which will result from increased water quality are estimated to be:
[B(R)]  net = [B(R)]  (2)   -   [B(R)1  (1)

           = $5,194,856   -   $1,479,416

           = $3,715,440
                                                           (8)
Measurement of Withdrawal Water Use Benefits

     1.   Municipal Water Supply

         Onondaga Lake is not presently used as a source for
municipal water supply.  It is a brickish water lake with high con-
centrations of calcium, sodium, bicarbonate, and chloride fens.
These inorganic salts have originated from natural salt springs
and from domestic and industrial pollution.  Table XXII shows the
chemical characteristics of Onondaga Lake and comparative values
for Skaneateles Lake and Lake Ontario, both of which are presently
being used for public water supply.  It should be noted that the
chloride concentration in 1965 was 1841 mg/1.  The U.S. Public Health
Service  (1963:34) recommends "that waters containing more than
250 mg/1 of chlorides or sulfates and 500 mg/1 of dissolved solids
not be used for drinking if other less mineralized supplies are
available."  The Onondaga Lake Scientific Council  (1966:24) suggests
that "it would appear that the inorganic salts in Onondaga Lake would
not reduce the multiple use of the lake except for drinking water."
                                 -120-

-------
                             Table XXI I




                   Chemical Characteristics of




                  Representative New York Lakes
                                                Locat i on


Chemical
Character-
is t i cs
PH
Conduct! vi ty
(Mi cromhos)
ppm
Alkal ini ty
Ca
Mg
Na + K
Fe
HCO
so4
Cl
NO



Onondaga
Lake
1955
(2)
7.7
5010

106.6
472
13
538
0.28
130
167
1460
11.0


Limestone Belt
Fayet-
tevi 1 le
Green
1965 Lake
(1) }\55
7.5
I960

157.4
555 400
18.7 62
1048 14.6
0.02
152 192
198 1050
1841 24
4.7

North
Appal a-
ch ian
Plateau
Skan-
eateles
Lake
1955
(2)
7.5
231

93.4
36
6.2
2.9
0.18
114
16
3.6
2.0
Lake
Plain
Lake
Ontari o
N ine-
Mi le
Point
Oswego
1955
(2)
7.9
306

92.6
38
8.0
10.4
0.05
113
25
23
0.7
Source: (1)  Onondaga Lake Scientific Council, 1966:21.




        (2)  Berg, 1963: 201.
                                 -121-

-------
         The City  of Syracuse  presently withdraws a maximum of 5^
 mgd (204,390 cubic  meters  per day)  of water  from Skaneateles Lake.
 Considering a probable  reduction  in future demand caused by high
 salinity,  it is assumed  that  25 mgd (9^,625  cubic meters per day)
 of water will  be  demanded  for municipal water supply,  if the quality
 of Onondaga Lake  were similar to  that of Skaneateles Lake, neglecting
 the concentrations  of inorganic salts.

         The benefits of  municipal withdrawal water use at this
 quality  are estimated to be equal to 12 cents per 1000 gallons
 or $120  per million gallons,  the  current cost of water treatment
 by coagulation, sedimentation and rapid sand filtration  (Koenig,
 1967).   The annual  municipal  withdrawal water use benefits for
 Onondaga Lake  will  be:

     [B(M>]   (1) = $120/mg  x 25 mg/day x 365  days/year     ^
             (2) = $l,095,000/year
    There  is  no existing municipal withdrawal of water and the
 existing municipal  annual withdrawal use benefits are therefore
 zero:

    [6(M}]  (1) = 0                                        (10)

    The net annual  benefits thus equal those at Skaneateles water
 qual i ty:

    [N(M)]  (net) =  [B(M)1 (2) -  [B(M)] (1)

    [B(M)]  (net) =  $1,095,000 - 0                         (11)

    [B(M)1  (net) =  $1,095,000

     2.  Industrial Water Supply

         The  industrial Chemicals Division of the Allied Chemical
 Corporation annual  uses 100 mgd  (378,000 cubic meters per day) of
 cooling water which is withdrawn from Onondaga Lake.  This water is
 chlorinated at a cost of $300,000 per year, to prevent slime growth
 and resultant loss  of heat transfer capacity in the heat exchanger
 equipment  (Bliven,  19&7).  This  is the main industrial use for
 Onondaga Lake water at existing quality and the industrial annual
water use benefits  are negative and may be taken to be equal to:

    [B(0j]   (1) = $300,000                               (12)

          ChJorination may not be required at improved water quality
 since the water will be cleaner and slime growth should be decreased.
At this water quality the cost of chlorine and therefore the damages
will be zero.   The  industrial annual water use benefits at high
quality are therefore zero:

    [B(0j  ]  (2)  = 0                                    (13)

and the net industrial annual water use benefits are:
                                 -122-

-------
       [B(Q)] (net) = [B(Q)] (2) - [B(0j] (1)

       [B(0j] (net) =0 - (-$300,000) = $300,00


     3.  Agricultural and Farmstead Water Supply

         Onondaga Lake is not presently a source of 'agricultural or
farmstead water and this use is not anticipated at an increased
water quality.  Agricultural and farmstead water annual  use benefits
at existing water quality, and at high water quality are zero and
thus net benefits are also zero:

        [B(A)j (1) = [B(A)] (2)  = [B(A)] (net) =0       (15)

     4.  Total Annual Withdrawal Water Use Benefits

         The total annual withdrawal water use benefits  for
Onondaga Lake at existing water quality are estimated to be:
       [B(WI)J (1) [B(M)1 (1) = [B(OJ] + [B(A)1 (l)
                                                        (16)
       [B(WI)] (1) = 0 - $300,000 + 0 = $300,000

         Total annual withdrawal water use benefits at drinking
water quality may be estimated to be:

       [B(WI)] (2) = [B(M)1  (2) + [B(OJ] (2) + [B(A)] (2)
                                                            (17)
       [B(WI)] (2) = $1,095,000

     5.  Net Annual Withdrawal Water Use Benefits

         Net annual withdrawal water use benefits are:

       [B(Wl)j (net)  = [B(W1)] (2) - [B(Wl)] (1)
                                                         (} 81
       [B(WI)] (net)  = $1,095,000 -  (-$300,000)          v  °'

       [B(WI)I (net)  = $1,395,000


Measurement of Wastewater Disposal Benefits

     A plan to improve treatment of  the wastes entering Onondaga Lake
has been approved by the New York State Department of Health.  The
plan basically involves an increase  in the capacity of and  the addition
of activated sludge biological treatment and lime precipitation tertiary
treatment to the existing Metropolitan Waste Treatment Plant.  Wastes
from Ley Creek sewer district; the Lakeland sewer district,  located
on the southwest shore of Onondaga Lake and including the New York
                             -123-

-------
 State Fairgrounds  and the  Allied  Chemical  Corporation will be
 combined with the  existing waste  flows  of  the  City of Syracuse
 and treated jointly.   It  is  claimed  that the tertiary lime pre-
 cipitation process which  follows  the secondary treatment will
 remove 50 percent  of  the  toxic metals  (coppyer,  chromium and
 iron), 92 percent  of  the  phosphate nutrients,  88 percent of the
 organic sewage material and  80 percent  of  the  oil and grease.
 The Curcible Steel  Corporation wastes will be  treated separately
 (Hennigan, 1968b).  This  proposed waste treatment is planned to
 satisfy the minimum effluent  standards  of  the  New York State
 Department of Health.

      The estimated construction costs for  these  projects are
 $28.8 million as shown  in  Table XXIII.  An equivalent annual cost
 may be calculated  by  using the capital  recovery  factor and assuming
 the $28.8 million  is  amortized over  20  years at  4 percent interest.
 The capital  recovery  factor may be computed as:  i(l + i) N/
 [d + ON-ll]  where  i represents  the interest rate per annum(expressed
 as  a decimal)  and  N represents  the years of estimated life (Linsley
 and Franzini,  1964.   The capital  recovery  factor  is 0.07358 and
 when multiplied by  the total  capital cost of $28.8 million, it gives
 an  annual  cost of  $2,119,104.

      Annual  operating costs for the  plant are  estimated to be
 $465,000  per year  (Hennigan,  1968b).

      Total  annual wastewater  disposal benefits at exist ing water
 quality  are  estimated to be at  least equal to  the total  annual
 costs  of waste treatment which will satisfy minimum standards:

      [B(WD)j  (1) = $2,119,104 + $465,000

      [B(WD)J  (1) = $2,584,104                               (19)

     Total annual wastewater disposal benefits at a higher water
 quality which will  occur when  pollution standards are being met
 are  assumed  to be zero:

      [B(WD>]  (2) = 0                                           (2Q)

     Net annual wastewater disposal benefits  at higher water quality
 are negative and may be considered as damages  to the present waste
 dischargers:
      [B(WD)]  (net)  =  [B(WD)]   (2) - [B(WD)1  (I)              (2])

      [B(WD)]  (net)  = 0 - $2,584,104 = $2,584,104

Measurement of Bordering Land Use  Benefits

     il.  Bordering   Land Use  Benefits at Existing Water  Quality
                                -124-

-------
                            Table XXI I I

            Estimated Construction Costs for Onondaga

               Lake Waste Treatment Facilities
        Faci1i ty
Construct i on
   Cost
    in
  mi 11 ions
    of
   dollars
Pumping Ley Creek Wastes to the
   Metropolitan Plant

Pumping Lakeland Wastes to the
   Metropoli tan Plant

Secondary Waste Treatment at the
   Metropolitan Plant

Tertiary Waste Treatment at the
   Metropolitan Plant
Total Construction Costs
     3.5


     1.7


    15.0


     8.6
    28.8
Source: Hennigan, 1968b.
                                  -125-

-------
                                                    Table  XXIV

                   Onondaga  Lake  Bordering  Property  Value  Benefits  at  Existing Water Quality
Char-
acter
of
pro-
perty






Seg.l(l)
Seg.l(2)
Seg.2(3)
Seg.2(4)
Seg.3(5)
Seg.3(6)
Seg.4(7)
Seg.4(8)
Total
Assessed
Value
of Shore-
1 i ne
Pro-
perty



A
$750,000



$7,900

$110,575

Total
Assessed
Value of
Sample
non-
shore-
1 ine
Pro-
perty

B

$120,400

$ 47,450

$112,000

$351,800
Equal -
i zat ion
Rate
Decimal
Frac-
ti on




C
.24 $
.24

.22
.22
.22
.40
.40
Total
Full
Value of
Shore-
line
Pro-
perty



D=A/C
3,125,000



$35,908

$276,438

Total
Full
Value of
Sample
Non-
Shore-
line
Pro-
perty

E=B/C

$501,667

$215,682

$509,091

$879,500
Number
of acres
of Shore-
llne
Pro-
perty




F
340

175

205.55

211.36

Number
of Acres
of
Sample
Non-
Shore-
line
Pro-
perty

G

40.71

259.51

192.83

114.32
Value
Per Acre
of Shore-
1 ine
Pro-
perty




H=D/F
$9,191

$515

$175

$1,308

Val ue
Per Acre
of
Sample
Non-
Shore-
1 i ne
Pro-
perty

I-E/G

$12,323

$ 831

$2,640

$7,693
Ratio
of
Shore-
line
Value
Per Acre
to Non-
Shore-
Value
Per Acre
J=H/I

0.746

0.620

0.066

0.170
Border! ng
Property
Benefits
(+) or
Damages
(-)



K-
Fxl(J-l)

-1,064,880

-55,300

-506,680

-1,349,597
(1)  Onondaga Lake Park. (2) Town of Salina and Village of Liverpool.  (3)  West Shore Park.
(4)  Town of Geddes. (5) Industrial Shoreline in Town of Geddes. (6)  Non-shoreline     Total  Benefits  =  $2,976,457
industrial to town of Geddes.  (7)  Industrial and commercial shoreline,  Syracuse.  (8)   Industrial  and  commercial
shoreline, Syracuse.
non-

-------
        The effect of v/ater quality on the value of property
bordering Onondaga lake is estimated at existing water quality
by comparing the per acre market value of non-shoreline property.
Assessed property values and the other information shown in Table
IX were obtained from the B&7 Onondaga County Tax records
(O'Connor, 1968) and the 196? City of Syracuse Tax records  (Ginggold,
1968).

        The four segments of land use classification for the property
bordering Onondaga Lake as shown in Figure 3, are used in  the
estimation of land use benefits.  Table XXIV shows the calculation
of benefits or damages for each of these segments.  Segment #1 con-
tains Onondaga Lake Park with an area of 340 acres.  The Park per
acre market value is calculated from the assessed value and is
compared with the per acre unimproved or land value of 195  parcels
of non-shoreline property in the Town of Salina.  These non-shoreline
properties have a total area of 40.71 acres and most of them are
lots for one family residences.  Segment #1 has a ratio of  shoreline
value per acre to nonshoreline value per acre of 0.746 and  bordering
property damages in column (K), are estimated to be $1,064,880, which
are calculated as 340 acres of shoreline property listed in column  (F) ,
times $9,191, the value per acre of non-shoreline property  in column
(1), times the quantity 0.746, the ratio of shoreline value per acre
to non-shoreline value per acre in column (j) minus 1.  It  is noted
that these damages may also be calculated by multiplying the 340 acres
of shoreline property in column (F) times the quantity $9,191, the  value
per acre of shoreline property in column (H) minus $12,323, the value
per acre of sample non-shorel ine p-operty in column (l). The second
calculation may seem simpler but the first calculation may  be used  in
estimating the benefits at existing quality and also at an  improved
quality where the ratio of shoreline value per acre to non-shoreline
value per acre is expected to change.

        Segment #2 contains the West Shore Park with an area of 175
acres.  The property has no assessed \aluation listed in the tax records
since it was received by Onondaga County as a free gift from New York
State (Shattuck, 1968b).  The market value per acre of this shoreline
property is estimated by the following method.  In 1964 Onondaga County
acquired 34 acres of swampland along Long Branch Road near the West
Shore Park area.  The average cost was $477 per acre (Shattuck, 1965:11).
Assuming that the value of this property has appreciated approximately
2 percent annually, the 1968 value will be $515 per acre which is  taken
as the park property value.  The per acre unimproved or land value  of
141 parcels of non-shoreline property is determined from the assessed
values.   These non-shoreline properties have a total area  of 259.51
acres and most of them are lots for one family residences.   Segment  #2
las a ratio of shoreline value per acre to non-shoreline value per
acre of 0.620 and the bordering property value damages are estimated to
be $55,300.
                                -127-

-------
         Segment #3 has 3 parcels  containing  205-55  acres  of  indus-
 trial property bordering Onondaga Lake which  are  owned  by the
 Allied Chemical Corporation.   Most of this property is  used  for  the
 disposal  of Allied Chemical  Corporation process wastes  in large  beds.
 The per acre market value of  this property is  calculated  from  the
 assessed  value and compared with  the per acre  unimproved or land  value
 of 11 parcels of non-shoreline industrial property  also owned  by the
 Allied Chemical Corporation.   This property has an  area of 192.83 acres
 and is located in the Town of Geddes.   Segment #3 has a ratio  of
 shoreline per acre value to  non-shoreline per  acre  value  of  0.066
 and bordering property damages are estimated  to be  $506,680.

        Segment #4 has 16 parcels  containing 211.36  acres  of  commercial
 and industrial property in the City of Syracuse and bordering
 Onondaga  Lake.  The per acre  market \alue of this  property, as  cal-
 culated from the assessed value  is compared with  the per  acre  unimproved
 or land value of 11 parcels of non-shoreline  commercial and
 industrial  property.   This property has an area of  114.32 acres.
 Segment #4  has a ratio of shoreline per acre value  to non-shoreline
 per acre  value of 0.170 and bordering  property damages  are estimated
 to be $1,3^9,597.

        Total  bordering land use benefits at existing water quality
 are determined by  taking the  algebraic sum of  column (K)  in  Table XXIV.
 The result  is  negative and thus  indicates a damage  value:

        [B(LT)]  (1) = $2,976,457                  (22)

        Total  annual  bordering land use damages at  existing  water
 quality may  be estimated by assuming  the total damages  are prorated
 over a five  year period,  a length  of  time which measurable change
 in  water  quality should occur  following the installation  of  im-
 proved wastewater  treatment, or the length of  time  necessary for a
 degraded  water quality to have  its  full  effect on land  values:

       [B(L)]  (1) = [B(LT)I (l)/5  = -$2,976,457/5
                                                     (23)
       [B(L)]  (1) = $595,291

      2.   Bordering Land  Use Benefits at  Skaneateles  Lake  Water Quality

          The  ratio of the  per  acre land  or unimproved market value
 of  shoreline property  on  Skaneateles Lake to non-shoreline property
 located in the Town of Skaneateles  is  computed in Table XXV  and  is
 equal  to  1.974.  There  is  66,000  feet  of lake frontage  in  the Town
 of  Skaneateles and 418  parcels of  property bordering the  lake, totaling
 783.56  acres in  area with  land use  divided 46 percent as  seasonal
 residences and 26  percent  one  family residences occupied year around.

         The assessed  value and area of 23 parcels of non-shoreline
 property  chosen  for comparison are  multiplied by a weighting factor
which  duplicates the  percentage distribution, by use of the  shoreline
 property.   For example,  the assessed values  and area of the  parcels
 in  the non-shoreline sample which  are seasonal residences  are weighted
such that they represent  46 percent of  the total  sample,  the percent


                                -128-

-------
                                         Table XXV

  Skaneateles Lake Ratio of Shoreline Property Values to Non-shoreline Property  Values
Char-
acter
of
pro-
perty






Total
Assessed
Value
of Shore-
1 i ne
Pro-
perty




Total
Assessed
Value of
Sample
Non-
shore-
1 i ne
Pro-
perty


Equal-
i zat ion
Rate
Dec! mal
Frac-
tion





Total
Full
Value of
Shore-
1 i ne
Pro-
perty




Total
Full
Value of
Sample
Non-
Shore-
1 i ne
Pro-
perty


Number
of Acres
of Shore-
line
Pro-
perty





Number
of Acres
of
Sample
Non-
Shore-
1 i ne
Pro-
perty


Value
Per Acre
of Shore-
1 i ne
Pro-
perty





Value
Per
Acre
of
Samp le
Non-
Shore-
1 i ne
Pro-
perty

Ratio
of
Shore-
line
Value
Per Acre
to Non-
Shore-
1 i ne
Value Per
Acre
A
D=A/C
                                                        E=B/C
                                                                  H=D/F
                                                I=E/G
              J=H/I
Shore-
 line   $864,200
Non-shore
 1 i ne
             .28     $3,086,429
$293,392     .28
$1,047,829
                                                        783.56
                                                                   525.26
                                           $3,939
$1,995
                                                                  1.97^

-------
                    Table XXVI




Onondaga Lake Bordering Property Value Benefits




       at Skaneateles Lake Water Quality
Char-
acter
of
Property
Segment




#1
n
#3
#4

Number
of Acres
of Shore-
1 i ne
Property



F
340
175
205.55
211.36

Value
Per Acre
of
Sample
Non-
shorel ine
Property

1
$12,323
$831
$2,640
$7,693

Ratio of
Shorel i ne
Value Per
Acre to
Non-
shorel ine
Value per
acre
J
1.974
1.974
1.974
1.974
Total Benefits =
Border! ng
Property
Benef i ts
(+) or
Damages
(-)

K =
Fxl (J-l)
$4,080,885
$141,644
$528,517
$1,583,716
$6,334,762
                         -130-

-------
that seasonal residence land use is to total shoreline land use.
The resulting weighted assessed value and area are entered in
columns  (B) and  (G) respectively of Table XXV.

       Total bordering land use benefits for Onondaga Lake at
Skaneateles Lake water quality may be estimated by assuming that
the ratio of per acre shoreline property value to per acre non-
shoreline property value may be projected from Skaneateles Lake
to Onondaga Lake.  Assuming at Onondaga Lake the non-shoreline
property values  remain unchanged, the bordering property value
benefits for each segment are calculated in column (K) of Table
XXVI.

       Total bordering land use benefits at Skaneateles Lake water
quality are determined by taking the algebraic sum of column {«)
in Table XXVI:

         [B(LT)]  (2) = $6,334,762                  (24)

       Total annual bordering land use benefits at Skaneateles
Lake water quality may be estimated by assuming the total benefits
are prorated over a five year period:
               (2) = [B(LT)] (2)/5 = $6,334,762/5 (25)

        [B(L)] (2) = $1,266,952

     3 .  Net Annual Bordering Land Use Benefits

         Net annual bordering tend use benefits for Onondaga Lkae
at Skaneateles Lake water quality may be calculated as:
        [B(L)](net) = [B(L)1 (2) - [B(L)1 (l)

        [B(L>]  (net) = $1,266,952 - (-$595,291)    (26)

        [B(L)]  (net) = $1,862,243

Measurement of  in-Stream Water Use Benefi ts

     The immediately measureable effects of water quality on in-stream
water uses of Onondaga Lake are limited to navigation damages caused
by the deposition of organic sludge and silt at the mouth of Onondaga
Creek.  This material fills the turning basin at the New  York State
Barge Canal Terminal and must be removed each year.  Table XXVII  shows
the average annual quantity of material removed from the area by a
fifteen inch hydraulic dredge owned by the State.

     The cost of dredging is estimated to be $1.00 per cubic yeard
(0.7646 cubic meters) (ENR, 1968a:43; ENR, 1968:45; Timbello, 1968)
and navigation  damages are estimated to be:
                                -131-

-------
                            Table XXVI I




        Quantities of Material Dredged from the Turning Basin




         at the Syracuse Barge Canal  Terminal, Solar Street,




                        Syracuse, New York
Year
1967
1966
1964
1963
1962
1961
Total
Average for the 7 year period
Quanti ty
Removed
cub ic
yards
84,856
298,173
20,400
80,470
55,535
27,083
566,517
80,931
Source:  Milovicz,  1968
                               -132-

-------
    ND(l) =  80,931  cubic yards x $1.00/cubic yard
                                                         (27)
    ND  (1) = $80,931

     Annual  in-stream water use benefits at existing water quality
are estimated to be:

    [B(IS)]  (1) = ND  (1)
                                                         (28)
    [B(IS)]  = (1) = $80,931

     Annual  in-stream water use benefits at a higher water quality
with prevention of sludge deposition in the turning basin are
estimated to be zero:

     [B(IS)] (2) =0                                       (29)

     Net annual In-stream water use benefits at high water quality
are estimated to be:

     [B(IS)](net) = [B(IS)] (2) - [B(lS)] (l)
                                                          (30)
     [B(IS)] (net) = 0  (-$80,931) = $80,931

Total  Annual Social Benefit for Onondaga Lake

     I.  Total  Annual Social Benefit for Onondaga Lake at Existing
         Water Q.ual i ty

         The total annual social benefit for Onondaga Lake at
existing water quality may be estimated by summing the results obtained
in the five  surveys:

         8(1) = [B(R)]  (1) + [B(WI)] (1) = [B(WD)] (1)

                                   + [B(L)]  (1) + [B(IS)] (1)

         B(l) = $1,479,416 - $300,000 + $2,584,104
                                                                 (3D
                                   - $595,291 - $80,931
         B(l) = $3,087,298
     2.  Total Annual Social Benefit for Onondaga Lake at an Improved
         Water Q,ua1 i ty

         The total annual social benefit for Onondaga Lake at an
improved water quality comparable to Green Lake and Skaneateles Lake
may be estibated by summing as follows:
         B(2) = [B(R)1 (2) + [B(WI)] (2) + [B(WD)] (2)

                                         + [B(L)1 (2) + [B(IS)] (2)

         B(2) = $5,194,856 + $1,095,000 + 0 + $1,266,952 + 0          (32)

         B(2) = $7,556,808

                                -133-

-------
o
o
CO
     7 L.
    3 !-
    2L
Figure k - Annual Social
sar.efit for Onondaga Lake

   At Existing Water Q.ua]Jty

      and at High Water

         Qua 1i ty
                                                Total Annual
                                                  Measurable
                                                    Social
                                                     Benefit
                               Racreat ion
                                Use Benefits
                                Was tewstar
                                 Di sposal
                                 Benef i t
                                              Wl thdrawa i
                                                    Water Use
                                                        BenefIts
                          i r.-Stream
                          Water  Use
                            Benefits
                             POLLUTION  i,\OE)
                               -13V

-------
-135-

-------
     3.  Net Annual Measurable Social Benefit for Onondaga Lake at
         Hi gh Water Quali ty

         The net annual measurable social benefit for Onondaga Lake
at high water quality is the dollar value to water users in changing
from existing water quality to the high water quality.  It is cal-
culated as follows:

        B  (net) = B(2) - B(l)  - $7,556,808 - $3,087,298

        B  (net) = $4,469,510                                (33)

          The net annual measurable social benefit is shown in Figure
4 plotted against pollution index.  A pollution index of 5.4 has  been
calculated for Onondaga Lake using water quality data gathered in
I960 (Sumitomo, 1968).  Therefore, a pollution index of five (5)  has
been assumed to indicate its existing water quality.  A pollution index
of one (1) is assumed to represent Onondaga Lake at an unpolluted quality.
                              -136-

-------
                            SECTION  XI

                         ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
     Many persons have contributed in one way  or another  to  the
research reported in Part B.   We would like  to personally thank
them all and will note that many persons  with  varied  backgrounds
very willingly shared with us  their knowledge  and opinions on
water pollution control.   We wish to especially acknowledge  several
people who have made particular contributions.

     Professors H. George Frederickson,  Frank  L.  Munger and  Roscoe
C. Martin of the Maxwell  Graduate School  of  Citizenship and  Public
Affairs at Syracuse University have offered  their critical appraisal
of this report.

     For the great amount of useful information we have  received
through personal communication we are indebted to Mr.  Robert J.
Henley, Mr. John J. Hennigan,  Jr., Mr. Russell  Holden, Mr. Roman
H. Koenings, Mrs. Jeanne  M. Milovicz, Mr. Leo  T.  O'Connor, Mr. J.
Howard Shattuck, Mr. Joseph Timbello and  Mr.  Fred Yopps.

     Mr. Hisashi Sumitomo of Kyoto University,  Kyoto,  Japan, has
been our co-worker for a  year  as he participated in the development
of the parallel study of  water pollution  index.  We would like to
thank him for his constructive comments.

     For funding, we are  grateful for the support of  the  Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration (Grant  WP-01089-02 and now
designated as 16080 DAJ).
                                 -137-

-------
                           SECTION XI I

                           REFERENCES

Ad Hoc Water Resources Council.  1964.
     "Evaluation Standards for Primary  Outdoor  Recreation  Benefits",
     Supplement No. 1  to Senate  Document No.  97 of the  87th Congress^
     Policies, Standards, and Procedures in  the Formation, Evaluation,
     and Review of Plans for Use and Development of Water  and  Related
     Land Resources, May 29, 1962, U.S.  Executive Branch,  Ad Hoc
     Water Resources Council, June k,  p. 9.

Air/Water Pollution Report.  1968.
     "DRBC Moves to Require Regional Solutions  to Water Pollution
     Problems", Air/Water Pollution Report,  June 3,  p.  188.

AWWA.  1966.
     "Staff Report of the Water  Utility  Industry in the United States",
     Journal of the American Water Works Association, Volume 58,
     Juiy, pp. 7b7-7«5.

Bean, Elwood L.  1967.
     "Proposed Quality Goals for Ratable  Water",  Wi 11 ing  Water,  Volume
     11, Number 6, American Water Works  Association, March 31-

Benson, D. A.   1962.
     Fishing and Hunting in Canada 196], Canadian Wildlife Service,
     Ottawa.

Berg, Clifford 0.   1963.
     "Middle Atlantic States", Ljmnology in  North America. David G.
     Frey, Ed., the University of Wisconsin  Press, Madison, pp.  191-
     237.

Bliven, Luther,  1967-
     "Connor Maps  Pollution Fight", Metropolitan Section,  Syracuse
     Post-Standard Newspaper, June 20.

Bureau of Outdoor  Recreation.  1967.
     Water-Oriented Recreation in the  Lake Ontario Basin,  New  York-
     Pensyl van j_a,  U.S. Department of Interior,  Bureau of Outdoor
     Recreation, Lake Central Region,  Ann Arbor, Michigan, October,
     223 p.

Carlson, R.  E., Deppe, T.R. and  Maclean, J.R.  1963.
     Recreation in American Life,  Wadsworth  Publishing  Company,  Belmont,
     Cali fornia.

Clawson, Marion and Knetsch, Jack L.  1966.
     The Economics of_0utdoor Recreation, Resources for the  Future,  Inc.,
     John Hopkins  Pres^s, Baltimore, 328  p.

Crites, R. S.   1966.
     Handbook of Outdoor Recreation Enterprises in Rural Areas,  Farmers
     Home Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture,  Washington,  DC,
     121  p.

                                   -139-

-------
 Frankel,  R.  J.   1965.
      "Water Quality Management:  Engineering-Economic Factors in
      Municipal  Waste Disposal",  Water  Resources Research, Volume 1,
      Number 2,  pp.  173-186.

 Gaffney,  Mason.   1967.
      "Applying  Economic Controls1'1,  Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,
      June,  20 p.

 Gingold,  Ben.   1968.
      City of Syracuse  1967 Real  Property Tax Records, Office of the
      Commissioner  of Assessment, Room  112, City Hall, Washington Street,
      Syracuse,  New  York.

 Hawkins,  D.  E.  and  Tindall,  B. S.   1966.
      Recreation and Park Yearbook 1966, National Recreation and Park
      Association, Washington, D. C., 160 p.

 Henley, Robert  J.   1967.
      "Water  Quality Influences on Outdoor Recreation in the Lake Ontario
      Basin", Proceedings, Tenth Annual  Conference on Great Lakes Re-
      search , University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pp. 427-439.

 Hennigan, John J.,  Jr.   1968a.
      Onondaga County Program  for Onondaga Lake, Assistant Deputy
      Commiss ioner, Di vis ion of Drainage, Sanitation and Water, Department
      of Public Works, Onondaga County,  January 24, 7 p.

 Hennigan, John, Jr., 1968b.
      Personal communication, Assistant  Deputy Commissioner, Division of
      Drainage, Sanitation and Water, Department of Public Works, Onondaga
      County, New York, September 30.

 Holden, Russel.   1967.
      Personal communication.   Superintendent, Green Lakes State Park,
      Fayettevi1le,  New York,  September.

 Hotelling, Harold.   1949.
      Letter quoted  by R. A. Prewitt in  The Economics of Public Recreations:
     An Economic Study of the Monetary  Evaluation of Recreation in the
      National Parks, Land and Recreation Planning Division,  National
      Park Service,  U.S.  Department  of Interior, Washington, D.  C.,  Mimeo=
      graphed.

Journal of the Board of Supervisors, Onondaga County.   1967.
      Board Executive Office,  407 Court  House, Syracuse, New York  13202
     928 p.

Juckett,  E.  T.   1964.
     "Motel-Hopping Across  U.S.", New York Times  Newspaper, Selection
      10,  September  13,  p.  7.
                                 -140-

-------
Kinney, E.G. 1964.
     "Extent of Acid Mine Pollution in the United  States Affecting
     Fish and Wildlife", Fish and Wildlife Circular  191, U.S.
     Department of Interior, Bureau of Sport  Fisheries  and Wildlife,
     Washington, D. C., June.

Kneese, Allen V.  1964.
     The Economics of Regional  Water Quality  Management, Resources
     for the Future, Inc., Johns Hopkins  press,  Baltimore, 215  p.

Kneese, Allen V.  1964.
     "What Are V/e Learning From Economic  Studies of  Water Quality",
     lecture given May 10, in "Urban Environmental Problems",
     Engineering Progress/University of Florida, Volume 21, Number 6
     Bulletin Serial 128, Water Resources Research Center, Publication
     Number 2, Gainesville, June 1967, pp. 5-19.

Kneese, Allen V.  196?.
     "Economics and Resource Engineering", Engineering  Education,
     Volume 57, Number 10, June, pp. 709-712.
Kneese, Allen V.  1968.
     "A Drink of Water", Resources,  Resources  for  the  Future,  Inc.,
     Washington, D.C.  September,  Adapted from Kneese, Allen V.  and
     Bower, Blair T., Managing Water Quality:  Economics, Technology,
     Institutions, Resources  for the Future,  Inc.  Johns Hopkins  Press,
     Baltimore, 1968.

Koenig, Louis.  1967.
     "The Cost of Water Treatment  by Coagulation,  Sedimentation,  and
     Rapid Sand Filtration",  Journal of the American Water  Works
     Association, Volume 59,  March,  pp. 290-336.

Koenings, Roman H.  1968.
     Personal communication.   Regional  Director, U.S.  Department  of
     Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation,  Lake  Central Region,
     3853 Research Park Drive, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104,  March  6,
     2 p.

Linsley, R.K. and Franzini, J.B.  1964.
     Water Resources Engineering,  McGraw-Hi11, New York  654 p.

Madow, P. 1965.
     Editor, "Recreation in America", The Reference Shelf,  Volume  37,
     Number 2, H. W. Wilson Company, New York206 p.

Meyer, H. D.  and Brightbill, C. K.   1964.
     Community Recreation:   A Guide  To Its  Organization.  Prentice-Hall,
     Englewood Cliffs, New  Jersey,  320 p.

Milovicz, Mrs. Jeanne M.  1968.
     Personal communication.   Civil  Engineer,  New  York State Canals  Head-
     quarters, State Office Building, Syracuse,  N.Y.,  October  30.
                                  -141-

-------
 Mulroy,  John  H.   1967.
      Report of the  County  Executive, Onondaga County, on Equalization,
      for 1968, December  31,  1  p.

 Nemerow, Nelson  L.   1966a.
      Water Pollution  Capacity  Resources Allocation, Department of
      Civil Engineering,  Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, 84 p.

 Nemerow, Nelson  L.   1966b.
      "Allocation of Stream Pollution Carrying Capacity", A Proposal
      for U.S.  Department of  Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control
      Administration Research Grant Number" 1-R01-WP-01089-01,  Department
      of  Civil  Engineering, Syracuse University , Syracuse, New York,
      June 1,  16  p.

 Nemerow,  Nelson  L.   1968
      Personal  communication.   Department of Civil Engineering, Syracuse
      University,  Syracuse, New York, December 16.

 New York State Board  of Equalization and Assessment.  1962.
      Classifications  and Definitions of Types of Real Property, Form
      EA-172  (6/26/62), 4 p.

 New York State Department  of Health. 1951.
      "Onondaga Lake Drainage Basin", Oswego River Drainage Basin Survey
      Series Report  Number  1, Water Pollution Control Board, July, 70 p.

 ORRRC.   1962a.
      "Outdoor  Recreation For America",  A Report to the President and
      Congress, Outdoor Recreation Resources  Review Commission, Washington,
      D.  C. , January.

 ORRRC.   1962b.
      National  Recreation Survey,  Report Number 19, Outdoor Recreation
      Resources Review Commission, Washington, D.C.

 O'Connor, Leo T.  1968.
      Onondaga  County  196? Real  Property Tax  Records, Office of the
      Commissioner of  Finance, Rom 103,  Onondaga County Court  House,
      401  Montgomery Street, Syracuse,  New York.

Ohio  Pollution Control Board.  1966.
      "Basic Criteria Approved", Clean Waters, Volume 15, Number 2,
      Ohio Water Pollution Control Board, Columbus, Ohio, Summer,  pp.  4-6.

Onondaga County Department  of Public Works.   1964.
      Road Map of Onondaga County, New York,  Division of Highways, Printed
     by the National Survey,  Chester, Vermont.

Onondaga  County Department  of Public Works.   196?.
     Half Hour From Home- Onondaga  County Park  System,  20th edition,
     Division of Parks and  Conservation, Liverpool,  New York,  40  p.
                                 -142-

-------
Onondaga Lake Scientific Council.  1966.
     An Environmental fesessment of Onondaga  Lake  and  its Major Con-
     tributory Streams, Daniel  F.  Jackson, Chairman,  Syracuse, New York,
     March 12, 60 p.

Rand, Myrton C.  1968.
     Unpublished notes  from lecture course  in Advanced Water Resources
     Engineering, Department of Civil  Engineering, Syracuse University,
     Syracuse, New York, Spring.

Seidel, Harris F. and Cleasby,  John L.   1966.
     "A Statistical Analysis of Water  Works  Data  for  I960", Journal
     of The American Water Works  Association, Volume  58, Number  12,
     pp. 1507-1527-

Shattuck, J. Howard.  1965.
     Annual Report of the Division of  Parks  and Conservation, Department
     of Public Works, Onondaga  County,  for the Year  1964, Main Office,
     Onondaga Lake Park, P. 0.  Box 146,  Liverpool, New York 13088, lip.

Shattuck, J. Howard.  1968a.
     Annual Report of the Division of  Parks  and Conservation, Depart-
     ment of Public Works, Onondaga County,  For the Year 1967, Main
     Office, Onondaga Lake Park,  P.  Q~.Box  146, Liverpool, New York
     13088, 11 p.

Shattuck, J. Howard. 1968b.
     Personal  communication.  Deputy Commissioner of  Parks and Conserva-
     tion, Department of Public Works,  Onondaga County, Onondaga Lake
     Park, P.  0.  Box 1^6, Liverpool, New York, August 16.

Smith, Robert.  1968a.
     "Preliminary Design and Simulation  of Conventional Wastewater
     Renovation Systems Using the  Digital Computer",  Water Pol 1ution
     Control Research Series Pub 1ication Number WPr20~9, U.S. Department
     of Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Ad-
     vanced Waste Treatment Branch,  Division of Research, Cincinnati
     Water Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,  Ohio, March, 91 p.

Smith, Robert. 1968b.
     "Cost of Conventional and  Advanced  Treatment of  Wastewater", Journal
     of the Water Pollution Control  Federation,  Volume 40, Number 9,
     September, pp.  15^6-157V.

Stevens, Joe B.  1966.
     "Recreation Benefits from  Water Pollution Control", Water Resources
     Research, Volume 2,  Number 2,  pp.  167-182.

Stroud, R.  H. and Massman,  W. H.   1963
     Conservation Highlights 1960-1962,  Sport Fishing  Institute Bond
     Building, Washington,  D. C.,  December.

Sumitomo,  Hisashi,  1968.
     Water Pollution Index, An  unpublished  report  to  the Department
     of Civil Engineering,  Syracuse University,  Syracuse, New York, June.


                                -143-

-------
Timbello, Joseph.  1968.
     Personal communication, Timbello Enterprises,  Inc.  Dredging
     Contractors, 1801 Erie Boulevard East,  Syracuse,  New  York,
     December 12.

U.S. Public Health Service. 1963.
     Pjjblic Health Service, Drinking Water Standards,  1962,  Pub 1 ic
     Health Service Publication Number 956,  U.S.  Government  Printing
     Office, Washington, D.C., 61  p.

Whitely, Virgil  and Dendy,  Bill B.   1968.
     "Conceptual Problems in Water-Quality Economics", Journal  of the
     Sanitary Engineering Division,  Proceedings of  the American
     Society of Civil  Engineers, Volume 94,  Number  SA5,  October,
     p. 841-848.

Yopps,  Frederic R.  1968.
     Measuring the Demand for Recreation as  an  Issue  in  Benefit-Cost
     Analysis, unpublished  thesis  for the  degree  of Master of Arts
     in Economics in  the Graduate  School  of  Syracuse University,
     October, 141 p.

Young,  G.  K.,Popowchak,  T.  and Burke, G. W., Jr., 1965.
     "Correlation of fegree  of Pollution With Chemical Costs", Journal
     of the American Water  Works Association, Volume 57, March, pp. 293-
     _
                                    -144-

-------
PART C - BENEFITS OF WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT
                 DEVELOPED BY
      NELSON L.  NEMEROW AND JOHN KARANIK
                          -H5-

-------
                            SECTION  I

                           CONCLUSIONS
     The objective of this part of the project has been basically
 threefol d:

     a)  to advocate the administration of water pollution abate-
         ment at the regional rather than State or Federal level;
     b)  to present a methodology for selling the pollution
         carrying capacity of water based on benefits foregone due
         to pol1uti on; and
     c)  to report on an attempt to achieve a trial status for a
         regional board selling assimulative capacity.

     The arguments for regional  control have admittedly been under-
 played, not due to the lack of potential  merit, but to the lack
 of sufficient experiences and evaluations.  The water pollution
 problem has been in existence for some time, but not until recently
 has  its severity been fully appreciated.   Until the full impact of
 the  problem became known to the man-on-the-street, if indeed this
 event has taken place, pollution control  efforts were of a piece-
 meal, local nature.  Before individual communities became aware that
 their neighbors were having the same problems and attempting the
 same solutions as themselves, the State and Federal governments had
 rapidly moved in and established themselves as the "powers that be".
 Both have strengthened their positions to the point where communities
 are  now almost completely dependent upon  them for legislation,
 regulation, planning, development and financing.  A consequence of
 this evolution is that local  problems and desires are often over-
 looked in favor of the=larger scope efforts.

     The debate concerning regional versus State or Federal Control
will no doubt continue for many  years due to the various types of
 programs applicable to both.   This research has not conclusively
 established that one is more preferable than the other.   It was
 not  the intention to do so, and  in fact could not be done within the
 context of the overall  invest! gat ion wi thout first obtaining enabling
 legislation.  It was, however,  a matter of interest to determine
 the  potential  for regional  controls and the experiences  of those in
 existence.   Toward this end,  two satellite projects were suggested
by the author and carried out my May (28) and Keenan (31).  Keenan,
 in summarizing his investigations, concludes that "The river basin
 authority approach is the most  efficient  administrative mechanism
 for  the management of water resources."  He discusses two basically
 similar schemes, both of which entail  the  river basin as  the local
 uni t;

     "The first alternative might be seen as a small scale Delaware
 River Basin Commission.   That is, the agency would be responsible
 for  the basin-wide planning for  the development and protection of
                                -147-

-------
 its water resources.   In addition,  the  commission would have the
 authority to implement the  provisions of  its  plan.  The commission
 would operate as  a special  taxing  district.   There  are two ways in
 which local  representation  could be  achieved.  The  members would
 represent each town,  village  or city  in the basin,  or  in  the case
 of a larger  basin, each  county.  The  commissioners  should be
 elected  directly  by the people or by  the governmental sub-unit  in-
 volved.   Representation  in  this case  should be proportionate to
 local population.   In addition, there should  be state  representatives
 to be appointed by either the Governor  or by  the State Health  or Water
 Resources Commissioner.   These state  representatives are  needed to
 offer technical competence  and to present the views of the State
 government.   The  other method for basing  representation on the basin
 board is  to  have  membership based upon water  consumption rather than
 population.   This  technique would probably represent the industries
 of the  region in  a more  equitable manner.  However, since decisions
 are to be made on  a best  use  basis,  it seems  reasonable therefore to
 base representation upon  water use.

      The  second alternative allows for  the establishment of policy
 at the state  level, and  implementation at the local level.  There
 are several  advantages associated with  this administrative method.
 First policy  is set by the  largest governmental  unit in the state.
 Hence the water resources policy will be determined within the con-
 text  of the  over-all  developmental goals of the state.  It is
 possible  that  the  "big picture" could be lost by a wholly autonomous
 local special  district.   Second, the  idea of a local river basin
 agency will be  retained.  These regional agencies would be responsible
 for meeting  the State's policy guidelines by the activation of local
 projects.  The  local  body would be permitted to decide upon the most
 economical and efficient  means  in order to fulfil]  the expectations of
 the  State  policy.   The actual provisions agreed upon by the local  agency
would be  based upon considerations involving the river basin as a
 unit.  Third,  this system would be more acceptable to State officials
 as  it would entail  the retention of more state authority than the
 previously discussed  alternative.

      It would, of  course, be  necessary to provide sufficient power
 to  the local  agencies.  In this respect, the agency would require
 the power  to collect  property  taxes, user fees,  effluent charges,  or
some combination of the three  in order to finance planning studies
and to implement the  resultant schemes for the basin-wide management
of water.   The agency should have the capability of enforcing its
decisions.  Representation on the local  boards should be essentially
the same as that discussed above.

     The  river basin authority approach  is the most efficient admin-
 istrative mechanism for the  management of water  resources.  The most
practical  means of establishing such a program involves a state
planning agency to set policy, and  a bcal  basin  agency to implement
                                  -}kB-

-------
the policy decisions.  The river basin authority should be  capable
of meeting these goals within the context of the basin as  a whole.
Consequently, basin-wide representation on the board should be  in
proportion to either population or water use."

     Keenan's conclusions basically support the contention  of  the
authors.  The operational success of existing river basin  authorities
leads one to believe that the regional approach is  indeed  the  pre-
ferred alternative.  The manner in which board membership  is determined,
however, is a matter that is unresolved.  More will  be said concerning
this later in this chapter.

     Keenan makes reference  to the financing of regional basin
boards.  The proposed'methodology affords a means by which  such
boards could secure  operating funds, as well as funds for  other
purposes, and instill incentive for waste treatment.

     In view of the lack of  criticism from the Eastern Oswego  Board
(EOB) , or from any other source, it can only be concluded  that  the
sale of assimilative capacity is a suitable means for achieving  pol-
lution abatement through a cooperative rather than  regulatory  or
legislative approach.  The concept of selling assimilative  capacity,
based on increasing bost with decreasing resource,  and the  method
of calculating unit prices,  is not a "cure-all", is  not a  precise
determination, and likely possesses several reasons  for discounting
its validity.  It does, however, provide a starting point  for  relating
foregone benefits, water quality and available resources.   Although
it may not be an explicit relationship, it is a rational  approach
toward establishing the regional value of pollution  abatement,  and
provides revenue for operation and development.

     It is felt that the proposal is better suited  for regional
boards than for higher authorities.  This, of course, is  unsubstantiated.
It is however, considered to be a reasonable conslusion for the  following
reasons:

     1)  The beneficiaries are easier to define;
     2)  Regional knowledge  of regional problems and desires
         surpasses that of higher authorities;
     3)  The disparity of activity, costs and benefits from one
         region to another would make it very difficult and time-
         consuming for a higher authority to apply  the principles
         suggested;
     4)  Application of the  proposal by higher authorities  would
         tend to favor political rather than hydrological  boundaries,
         especially in basins crossing state lines;  and
     5)  Regional applications would present only minor bookkeeping
         problems since all  expenditures and revenues would be
         internal (much like a completely new political entity),
         whereas application by higher authorities  would result  in
         massive bookkeeping problems, require increased numbers of
         personnel and allow for the continuance of external diseconomies
                                   -149-

-------
     It had originally been intended to report on the operation of
a regional board utilizing the resource sales concept.  Considerable
time was spent, however, on developing the method, explaining it
to the EOB, and demonstrating the manner in which an enforcement
agency could utilize it.  Sufficient time remained to test the theory,
but when negotiations with the board were discontinued there was no
possibility of attempting another approach in time to meet the dead-
line established by the research contract.  There is much to be con-
cluded, however, regarding the operation of local river basin planning
boards and the feasibility of such boards utilizing the proposed
methodology.

     The current structure of such boards precludes their making
use of the proposal for other than academic purposes.  They have
no authority,  can take no action, have an extremely limited budget,
are virtually  entirely dependent upon the State for technical
assistance and, due in part to their vague existence, receive little
or no local support.  If the specific criticisms- listed below are
corrected, the authors are confident that similar regional boards could
provide competent and efficient pollution control programs:

     1)   The enabling legislation creating the local boards  is
         quite restrictive and maintains planning controls at the
         State level.   The legislation is for all intents and
         purposes a feeble attempt to allow for regional  partici-
         pation in water resources in planning and development.
     2)   Water Quality control is not one of the responsibilities
         of such boards in planning endeavors.  It makes  little
         sense to separate all ether water uses from pollution
         abatement, especially when one considers the considerable
         amount of interaction between all  uses.
     3)   The selection of board members is made by the State from a
         list  of names  supplied by the participating counties.   The
         reasons  for this  are  unclear and cast additional  doubt  on
         the role to be played by the regional  boards.
     k)   The specific interest group representation appears  to be
         adequate but  the  qualification requirements of representatives
         leaves something  to be desired.   The integrity and  intentions
         of the representatives  cannot be questioned but  reasons for
         the selection  of  some specific members can be.   For example,
         on the EOB, the industrial  representative is the editor of
         the area.   It  can be safely assumed that  he is  familiar  with
         industrial  pulse  within  his community but the same  cannot
         be said  of this  familiarity with  other areas of  the basin.
         There  are  other similar  examples  that could be cited.   The
         point  is,  interest groups  representation should  be  interest
         group  representation  and not the  casual  filling  of  seats
         that  the  present  system  appears  to be at times.
     5)   Involvement with  staff activities  is  not sufficient to  create
         maximum  interest  and  education  of  members.   This  could  be im-
         proved by  compensating members,  having true interest group
                                  -150-

-------
representation and/or hold meetings at a greater frequency.
The present structure allows members to participate on the
board until such time as the "plan" is complete.  If a
particular interest group is of the opinion that they are
not receiving adequate representation, there is no recourse.
Upon completion of planning efforts, the board expires.   There
is no provision"for plan development and implementation  and
in fact no assurance that the plan will be accepted by the
State.
                          -151-

-------
                            SECTION II

                         RECOMMENDATIONS

     The structure of local planning boards is perhaps adequate
within the context of the boards responsibilities.   However,  if
regional participation and "Home rule"  are the policies guiding
State activities it would appear certain that several  legislative
changes are required.  Given these changes, regional boards could
surely utilize the proposed methodology.  It is interesting to
read a recent publication by the State  (32):

     "An essential component of the complex process of managing
water resources is the formulation of rational water policies.
These should be designed to reflect the public interest,
facilitate realization of objectives,  and promote equitable
distribution of costs and benefits in the pursuit of such objectives,
Water laws and the policies associated  with their implementation
require frequent re-examination to ascertain their adequacy in the
light of changing conditions and social goals.  While the State
has been progressive in this respect,  notably through initiation
of analysis of riparian rights and in the promulgation of water
quality standards, the reconnaissance reports highlight situations
where legal and policy adjustments would broaded alternative
choices for achieving efficient use of  water resources.  This
particularly is true with respect to cost-sharing policies."

     "Reliance for maintaining water quality in New York State
currently is centered on two techniques - high degree treatment
at the source of waste discharges and low-flow augmentation, with
low-flow augmentation considered as a possible supplement to
treatment.  Management of quality invites consideration of a  range
of technologic alternatives along with  institutional arrangements
to facilitate their financing, construction and an  operation.
Policies should be explored that will  encourage application of
these alternatives".

     In light of the above statements,  as well as other findings of
the study, .the following specific recommendations are made:

     ])   The concept of resource salesby a regional regulatory
         board remains untested.  Legislative and/or administrative
         actions should be encouraged to promote a  trial board for
         some specified period of time.  This could be attempted
         by contact with another board  similar to the EOB, with
         state legislators or state pollution control  authorities.
         Despite the results of talks with the EOB, it is still
         felt that the first alternative holds the  most promise.

     2)   Concurrent with attempting to  create a trial  board,  legis-
                                 -153-

-------
     lation should be drafted that would account for the
     criticisms of the present structure of local boards.
    The experiences of the trial board would certainly re-
    quire alterations to such legislation, but in the mean-
     time lengthy debates and arguments concerning the con-
    troversial approach may be settled.

3)  Further investigations need to be carried out concerning
    the calculation of regional  benefits and unit prices,  as
    well as the relationships hypothesized on Figure 1.

4)  Economic studies need to be conducted to determine the
    impact of regional  boards on tax revenues to the State
    and Federal governments, as  well as on the existing
    engineering staffs  of both authorities.

5)  The calculation of Pollution Index, while being a forward
    step,  needs to be refined to account for not only physical
    and chemical  parameters, but also the response of aquatic
    life to a particular type of effluents.  This might be
    considered a  type cf Biological  Index.

-------
                           SECTION I I I

                          INTRODUCTION


     Since the passage of the Federal Water Pollution  Control
Act of 1956, (l), the United States has experienced a  deluge  of
water pollution control legislation and subsequent regulations.
These have come about predominantly at  the Federal and State
levels.  During this same time period,  however,  there  has  been
little evidence to suggest that increased legislation  has  resulted
in decreased degradation of water resources.  Water quality problems
continue to grow at an increasing and  alarming rate, despite  the
expenditures of large amounts of tax dollars.  There are many
examples that could be cited but one will suffice to illustrate  the
point.  "On a stretch of an unidentified interstate river, where
$7-7 million had been spent on municipal sewage  disposal plants  since
1957, these facilities had reduced total pollution of  the  river  by
three per cent while the amount of industrial  waste dumped into
the same river in the same years had increased by 350  percent"  (2).
To say that recent legislation has done little to discourage  water
pollution would be closer to the truth.

     Our current water pollution problems are  reflections  of  an
expanding economy and population, increased labor and  construction
costs, inadequate private awareness and representation, insufficient
acceptance and use of basic economic principles,  and inadequate
assessments of benefits to be derived by water pollution abatement.
As Fox (3)  points out, "our water problems may be thought  of  as
occur!ng in three major areas.  One problem area  is the urgent  need
of maintaining a continuously advancing science  and technology,
especially in water quality management.  A very  difficult  and complex
problem area is that of balancing costs and returns from water
development and use.  It has proven to  be uncommonly dfficult to
achieve a consensus of costs and returns, which,  in turn,  has often
made it difficult to proceed with water programs.  A third problem
area stems from the inadequacy of water management institutions.
Laws, policies, and organizational arrangements  have not kept abreast
of the requirements of a rising demand  and an  advanced technology."

     Part C of this project addresses  itself to  the latter two  areas.
A new type of administrative body will  be proposed which will utilize
economic principles and sell waste discharge "privileges".   In develop-
ing a case for such a management scheme, the authors first considered
current pollution control  methods, and  their shortcomings, and  then
attempted to relate economics to water  pollution  abatement administration,
A case study is discussed in which the  proposed  system of  pollution
abatement was presented to a regional  river basin planning board.

     It is proposed that a local river  basin board be established  having
the authority to govern and sell the water resources from  within the
basin.  A modus operand! is presented  in the following section  using
Onondaga Lake,  Syracuse, New York, as  an example.
                                -155-

-------
                            SECTION IV

                    ADMINISTERING THE SALE OF
                      ASSIMILATIVE CAPACITY

                  The Calculation of Unit Prices


      It  is  recognized that every body of water has an assimilative
 capacity  for any type of waste discharge.  Although it is felt that
 the methodology to be discussed could be applied to any particular
 non-conservative contaminant of a waste, the author has confined
 his comments to the problem of oxygen consuming contaminants (primarily
 biodegradable organic matter).  This has been done to make the demon-
 stration  as easily understood as possible, because dissolved oxygen
 is traditionally the major indicator of pollution and because one of
 the significant problems with Onondaga Lake is essentially that of low
 dissolved oxygen levels.

     The  proposal  is that a regional board be empowered to sell the
 assimilative capacity of Onondaga Lake to those dischargers into the
 lake.  Before doing so, the board would require at least the following
 in format!on:

     1)   identity of all dscharges;
     2)  quantities of discharge;
     3)  existing and desired pollution index (a measure of water
         quali ty);
     4)  benefits  of waste treatment;  and
     5)  assimilative capacity.

     The  identities of, and loadings from dischargers to Onondaga
 Lake are presented in Table I:

                             TABLE I

                     Onondaga Lake Discharges

 Discharger                    Average  Flow              Pounds  of Organic
                                 mgd                     Load per day

A                                129-.                        ^3,500
 B                                 40                        7A.OOO
C                                 75                           300
D                                  2                           100
E                                 \k                           100
 F                                  5                         5>000

          Total                   265 mgd                   123,000 Ib/day

     Using the  method developed  by Sumitomo (20)  it has been determined
that the present pollution index (PI)  of Onondaga Lake is 5.A whereas
 for water-contact  recreation  it  would  be desirable to have a PI equal
to 1.
                                 -157-

-------
       Using updated data with the benefit calculations  provided
 by Faro and Nemerow (21) it has  been determined  that  Onondaga  Lake
 is presently "worth" $3.2 million less  per year  than  if it were of
 a quality suitable for water-contact recreation.  Thus  the  loss of
 benefits  amounts  to $8,800 per day.

      The  itemized annual benefits are as  follows:

 Water Use                  Present Qual i ty            Improved Qual i ty

 Recreation                  $M79,4l6                  $5,19M56
 Land Use                     -  595,291                   1, 266,952
 Was tewater Disposal           3,831,000                      0
 In-Stream                       80,931                      0
 Withdrawal                      300,000                   1,095,000
         Total               $zt,33/t,m                  $7,556,808

     At  this  point  it  is  necessary  to  relate  the available data
 in  order to establish  a methodology  for  fulfilling  the  objectives
 as  listed by  Nemerow  (19).   The  input  data  used by  the  writers in
 this part of  the  project  in  establishing a  relationship are summarized
 as  follows:

     1)  123,000  pounds of oxygen consuming  material discharged
         per  day;
     2)  $8,800 of benefits  lost daily at present lake  quality;
     3)  average  dissolved oxygen contact of  the lake presently
         equal to 1.5  milligrams per liter;
     4)  average  daily stream flow  into the lake equal  to 179
         million  gallons  per day;
     5)  lake volume equal to 37,078 million  gallons;
     6)  direct relationship between oxygen consuming material
         and dissolved oxygen concentration of the  lake;
     7)  no loss of benefits when the discharge of oxygen con-
         suming material  is  zero;
     8)  PI  = 0 when the  discharge of oxygen  consuming  material
         is zero;
     9)  dissolved oxygen of the lake equal to 8 milligrams per
         liter when thedscharge of oxygen consuming material  is
         zero;
    10)  minimum of k milligrams per liter of dissolved oxygen re-
         quired in the lake  (lowest acceptable for fish propagation);
    11)  a  completely mixed  lake;
    12)  PI  = 5-^ at present quality;
    13)  PI  = 1  as the objective (water contact recreation);
    14)  ^70,000 pounds of dissolved oxygen presently available in
         the lake; and
    15)  2.5 million pounds  of dissolved oxygen available for sale
         daily under conditions  of zero discharge of oxygen consuming
         materi al .

     Figure  1  shows  a possible relationship among these data.    It
is  important  to  note that  Figure 1  may  not  be  an  explicit relationship
                                -158-

-------
       THOUSANDS  OF  BENEFIT DOLLARS  LOST  DAILY
                      5.533
                   4.059    2.94-3  2.172  1612 1056 0.627 0262
                                                                0.47
5.4
   432

      POLLUTION   INDEX


Figure  1. Unit Price  Calculation
                                                                       UJ
                                                                       _i
                                                                       m
                                                                       til
                                                                       o

                                                                       X
                                                                       o

                                                                       u.
                                                                       o
                                                                       a
                                                                       z
                                                                       =>
                                                                       O
                                                                       a.

                                                                       u.
                                                                       o

                                                                       w
                                                                       z
                                                                       o
                                                                234
                                                                 2.50
                              -159-

-------
 of the  four  parameters.   It  is known  that there exists a relation-
 ship  between  dissolved oxygen and amount of oxygen consuming
 material  being  discharged, between oxygen consuming material and
 pollution index,  and between pollution  index and benefits lost.  It
 is not  unreasonable to assume, therefore, that there exists a  relation-
 ship  among all  four parameters.  The  exact and precise graphical
 relationship  may  be difficult to illustrate, but Figure 1 can be
 substantiated theoretically and is suggested as a starting point for
 future  studies.

      The  two  end  points are known to  be essentially factual; $8,800
 of benefits  lost  daily at the present discharge, and no loss of
 benefits  when there is no discharge of waste materials.  A third
 point was selected at the intersection of the two objectives, Pl=l
 and dissolved oxygen equal to k milligrams per liter.  A curve is
 then  drawn through the three points.  The assumption of a direct
 relationship  between dissolved oxygen and oxygen consuming wastes
 results in 1.25 million pounds of dissolved oxygen being available
 each  day  for  a discharge of 76,000 pounds per day and still meet
 the established objectives for the lake.  The remaining oxygen
 consuming contaminants must be removed by the individual  dischargers
 by alternative methods than that of discharge into Onondaga Lake.

     Having established the amount of resource available for sale
 the board will then have considerable flexibility in determining
 the price of the  resource.  As implied by the curve and stated in
 previous  discussion, the suggestion is that damages (benefits
 lost)  be  used as  the basis for determining price.   Furthermore, it
has been suggested that the principle of supply and demand be
applied in such a manner as to discourage excessive waste discharges,
encourage waste treatment and provide for efficient usage of resources.
Assuming  that the board is to be a non-profit organization with the
sole monetary objective being to recover the benefits lost,  it is
possible to construct  a sliding  scale payment schedule.   There are
potentially many ways  in which this can be done.   One possibility is
as f o 1 1 ows :

     a)   Having established the  objective, the board will  be in a
         position to determine how much discharge will  be permitted
         and  the price to be cited  for doing so.   In the  example
         being cited,  76,000 pounds of oxygen consuming waste will
         be permitted  daily in order to achieve an objective of b
         milligrams per liter of dissolved oxygen  in the  lake and/or
         a pollution index of 1.0.

     b)   A decision must  then be  made as to how much of the 76,000
         pounds  will be sold at  any particular price.   For  this
         example the author has  selected to sell  the discharge privi-
         leges in four  blocks  of  19,000  pounds  each.

     c)  The  unit price within each  block  is  then  calculated as being
                                 -160-

-------
         the incremental loss of benefits accrued by selling
         discharge privileges (See Figure 1)  divided by the
         amount of discharge privileges being sold.   In this
         manner Table II may be constructed.

                             TABLE I I
                    Calculation of Unit Prices
Block
  2
  3
Pounds BOD
Sold/day

 19,000
 19,000
 19,000
 19,000
Incremental  Benefit  Lost  ($)
                  Unit Price
                     ib.  U)
                                                                    per
     262-    0
     627-262
    1056-627
    1612-1056
= 262
= 365
                                       = 556
262/19000=1. A
365/19000=1.9
J»29/ 19000=2. 3
556/19000=2.9
The amount of discharge permitted each customer would be a matter
for the board to decide depending upon the local situation.  The
purchase quota may  be prorated based upon four possible suggested
methods :

     a)  percentage of oxygen consuming wastes;
     b)  percentage of flow;
     c)  relative value (taxes) to the community;
     d)  relative need or desirability to the community of a
         particular discharger.

     While it is possible that any of the four suggested methods may
be more applicable in a given locality, the author has selected the
first method to demonstrate the use of the system.  Assuming that
all dischargers elect to purchase the maximum B.O.D.  resources rather
than treat the wastes, Table III  represents an allocation of the
oxygen resources.
     Having purchased all they are allowed, the dischargers must then
eliminate from the discharge the remaining oxygen consuming wastes.
Discharge B then may find that rather than provide treatment to remove
28,2^0 pounds of organic wastes (38% removal), and pay $35^,039 per
year for discharging 45,760 pounds of organic waste, it may be less
expensive to treat to a higher degree and purchase less.  If this
is the case, the allowable purchases unused by Discharger B  would then
be apportioned to the remaining customers.  Any discharger is free at
any time to discontinue purchases and install treatment instead, or
make other suitable decisions islating to production which requires less
purchases .
                                 -161-

-------
                               TABLE I I I
                           Dischargers  Costs
    Dis- % of Organ!c
  charger    Load
Block Allowable
 Size,  Block
  1b. Purchase,
         Ib.
A
B
C
D
E
F
35.29
60.18
.26
.08
.08
4.11
x 19,000
x 19,000
x 19,000
x 19,000
x 19,000
x 19,000
= 6700
=11440
= 50
= 15
= 15
» 780
26,800
45,760
200
60
60
3,120
Total Pur-   Total      Total
chase, Four  Daily     Annual
 Block,Ib.   Costs  $  Cost  $
                                                    '=569.50   207,867
                                                    969.97   354,039
                                                       4.24     1,5^7
                                                       1.27      464
                                                       1.27      464
                                                     66.07   24,115
     Totals  100.00
      19,000
76,000
$1612.32 $588,496
        ''=6700  Ib  at  1.4c  =  $93.80;  6700  Ib at  1 .9c =  127.30, etc.

      The  board may  for some  reason, be  it technical, political or
 economical, decide  that  purchases  beyond Block 4  (76,000  Ib.) may be
 permitted.  While  it  may well be that the discharge  of 76,000 pounds
 of  organic wastes daily  will not give exactly a PI = 1 and a dissolved
 oxygen  concentration  of  4  milligrams per liter, the  discharge of much
 more  than this may  definitely  impair the quality of  the water.  For
 this  reason it is suggested  that,  if additional sales are to be made,
 a factor  be applied which, when multiplied by the price per pound,
 increases the unit  price sufficiently to discourage excessive purchases.
 The price will increase  naturally  due to the shape of the curve shown
 on  Figure 1, but not  rapidly enough to  provide the discouragement being
 sought.   The factor proposed is equal to the ratio of the dollar benefits
 lost  at incremental blocks to the  dollar benefits lost at the desirable
 level or  objective.   It  is also suggested that the blocks be'decreased
 in  size to 10,000 pounds each to provide even further discouragement
 for excessive purchases.  The results of having done the above are shown
 in  Table  IV, where  the dollar benefits  lost at the desirable level are
 $2,930 per day.

     The  board is in  a position to sell  resources once the unit prices
 have been determined.  In a  real situation the benefits foregone would be
 attributed to more that  just oxygen consumi ng wastes.   There would need
 to  be a resources allocation for each contaminating matter deemed to be
 degrading the aquatic environment with  the foregone benefits being pro-
 rated for each, so as to establish unit prices for each contaminant of
 a waste.  The board then will have achieved the primary goal of maintaining
 some minimum acceptable water quality goal.   In so doing, it has encouraged
waste treatment by setting a "pollution price" based on benefits foregone,
 and have  collected revenue, the uses and disbursements  which will  be dis-
 cussed later in this section.
                                    -162-

-------
                               TABLE IV

                 Calculation of Increased Unit Prices
                                                                     Unit
Block Pounds   Incremental Benefits Price per Ib.  (<)  Factor        Price
       Sold           Lost ($)                                       $/lb.

  5   10,000   2172-1612 = 560      560/10,000=0.056 x 2172/1612 = 0.075

  6   10,000   2943-2172=771      771/10,000=0.077 x 2943/1612 ='0.140
  7   10,000   4059-2943=1116     1116/10,000=0.111 x 4059/1612 = 0.281

  8   10,000   5533-4059 =1474     1474/10,000=0.147 x 6633/1612 = 0.504
  9    7,000   8800-5583 = 3267    3278/7000  =0.457 x 8800/1612 = 2.50

An Administrative - Regulatory Board

     In the administration of a program such as the one being proposed,
it is quite obviously out of the question to consider the state and/or
Federal governments as the administrative body.  The differences in
economy (standard of living, industrial activity,  etc.) from one locale
to another would preclude an efficient operation by either jurisdiction.
The application of general state-wide requirements for uniform treatment
solely for the sake of providing treatment.

     The proposed methodology is perhaps best managed at the regional
level.   It may be a river basin or portion thereof.  This does not imply
that the State or Federal Governments relinquish their responsibilities,
but that their policies be implemented by some smaller unit capable of
making better evaluations of regional needs and desires, as well as
regional benefits of pollution abatement.  The higher jurisdictions may
still determine the minimum water quality upon leaving the basin, but
the manner in which that goal is achieved and the water quality wi thi n
the basin would be decided upon based on regional  desires.

     As stated by Kinney (23), "The answer (to pollution abatement)1ies
in a local team effort, the formation of conservancy foundations in river
basins  or portions of basins.  The foundation would consist of counties,
municipal  corporations and industries...Such an approach provides positive
leadership; it eliminates delay while arguments and uncertainties as  to
what the federal  or state final decisions may be prevent other programs  from
getting underway; if it agrees with the State adopted standards it can pro-
ceed to assure their attainment; it provides an organization which can
speak for the best interests of the basin and answer any charges by either
Federal or State  agency that the adopted program is inadequate."

     "In short, it gets action started and places  the burden of proof
on someone else that the action is not in the public interest.  It permits
the citizens to achieve pollution control by joint effort, and if capably
directed,  this will beat least cost."
                                    -163-

-------
      A local  joing determination  of alternatives,  costs  and benefits
 can do well  in any court review.   This  information also  makes sense
 to Congressmen and members  of the state  legislature."

      Kinney's comments  are  worthy of considerable  contemplation by
 legislators  and pollution control  officials.  However, it  is not
 the purpose,  at this  time,  to defend nor  refute the  relative values
 of regional  administration  as opposed to  state or  federal  authority.
 They are  discussed at  length  by Kneese  (2k,  16), Martin  (25), Deininger
 (26), and Fair (27).  The response of one regional group to the pro-
 posal will be discussed in  the following  chapter.  For the present  it
 is to be  assumed  that the regional  approach  is acceptable  and perhaps
 the only  means of implementing resource sales.

      Based upon the presumption of local  basin administration the
 precise problems  to be  considered are who should be  represented on
 the board, how large should the board be,  how should the board be
 selected, to  how  large  an area should the board's jurisdiction
 extend, and how should  the  board  operate?   It was originally intended
 to determine  some answer to these questions but it soon became obvious
 that there would  be no  clear  cut  solution  for every  possible situation.
 Representatives on the  board  ideally  should  include  one spokesman
 from every type of major water use within  the jurisdiction: municipal
 corporations,  industry,  agriculture,  recreation, navigation, etc.
 It perhaps would  be desirable to  have equal numbers  of representatives
 in voting positions for each  interest group, but then again there might
 be a logical  argument for prorating  members based on size, use, tax
 contribution,  etc.

      The  number ofnembers is  likewise a matter of specific circumstances.
 The  only  point  that can  be  made at this time is that the board should not
 become  a  bureaucratic monstrosity.  There  should be sufficient members
 to present as  many opinions as may be necessary for equitable decisions.
 There should  not  be so  many as to  tie up  proceedings in lengthy and perhaps
 useless debates.  This is a  problem, however, for which the author feels
 it  is difficult to optimize a  solution.   A decision  for the numbers of
 members can probably be  made  on the basis of economics.  It is  proposed
 that board members be salaried.   Difficulties can arise,  as noted in the
 next  chapter, when such  members are  uncompensated.   The salaried board
 member  may not  serve full time, but some  compensation should be forth-
 coming  for the  efforts of such individuals.  The board would need a full
 time staff of engineer(s),  secretary(s) , etc.  The  majority of operating
 expenses  should be allocated  to these individuals.   Salaries for board
 members would  ideally account  for a minimal percentage of operating ex-
 penses but be sufficient to  encourage honest efforts  on behalf  of the
 members.  The primary objective would be to avoid understaffing or under-
 representing  to the point where the efforts of the  organization result in
minimum benefits per dollar  of operating expense.   Large, self-serving
bureaucracies are not the answer to the  problems  but  neither is the other
extreme.
                                 -164-

-------
     Selection of board members is an extremely crucial matter in
 the efficient operation of such an organization.  The Water Resources
 Commission  currently selects members for the Local River Basin
 Planning Boards  in New York State which are discussed in the next
 chapter.  This does not appear to be a satisfactory method for pro-
 viding  local  representation.  Although perhaps not the best alterna-
 tive, but a better one, would be for individual interest groups
 to select their  own representatives for some staggered term of office.
 Staggering  the terms would prevent the entire board from changing
 office  at the same time and allow for some continuity of policy.
 By specifying the length of term, the affected parties would have
 some recourse for inadequate representation, which they do not have
 now, and which is discussed in the next chapter.

     The members selected would not in the true sense be lay citizens
 but would have to possess some working knowledge of thei direction
 and desires of local groups. They would not have to be engineers,
 economists  or lawyers, but be able to converse with such people,  dis-
 seminate the  facts and make a rational decision.  This, of course,
 v/ill not always  be possible, but should be the objective.  The author
 is uncertain  as  to what effect political party affiliation may have
 in the  operation of such boards, but it is certainly a potential
 problem worthy of consideration.

     The areal jurisdiction of such boards is commented upon by Kneese
 (16).

     "What  constitutes a region in which interdependencies are
 sufficiently  large to imply centralized management?  Is it the
 Muskingum,  the Ohio, or the Mississippi?  A smaller region like
 the Muskingum would be more managemable, but there is no doubt that
 the consequences of water use within a tributary basin will be felt well
 beyond.

     In each  instance it must be determined what the interdependencies
 are and what area they cover.  Then an effort must be made to delineate
 an appropriate management unit on this basis.  The final solution
 probably can only be found through experimentation.  In proceeding,
 it would appear wise not to delay action in heavily developed smaller
 and medium-sized basins while agreement on appropriate machinery  for
 a larger region  is being sought.

     In practice it might not be desirable to incorporate all traceable
 interdependencies in a single managerial unit.  Some decentralization
 can be  maintained by permitting separate regional  agencies to provide
 one another with inducements to efficiency.  For example, a main-stem
 authority might  treat a tributary under the jurisdiction of a separate
 agency  much like an effluent out-fall  by specifying a standard for
waters  entering  the main stem and/or levying a charge upon the materials
 contained in such water.  The charges or standards should in principle
 be set  to reflect the incremental main-stem costs  of damages, extra
 treatment,  flow  regulation, etc., that are attributable to the residual
waste load  carried by the tributary.  In this way  the tributary authority
would have  an incentive to take mainstem costs into account, even though
 they are not directly within its jurisdiction."
                                -165-

-------
 The Sale of Resources

      Having solved the various problems  of initiating  a  resource
 sales board, the daily operations and actual  sales  should  amount  to
 a relatively minor problem.  The first order  of business,  if  it had
 not already been done, would be a survey of the basin, or  sub-basin,
 to determine waste discharge sources  and available  pollution
 carrying capacity resources.  Coincidental  to such  a survey would be
 feasibility studies  for various alternatives,  at different objectives,
 and the benefits to  be derived at each objective.   Through a  series
 of informational hearings, or perhaps  even a ballot, the  local bene-
 ficiaries would be informed of the alternatives, the costs and benefits,
 and an objective would then be established by  the Board  in behalf of
 the ci ti zens .

      The board, with all  interest groups represented, would then
 construct a payment  schedule as suggested earlier in this  chapter
 and distribute  to the dischargers a summary sheet stating  the
 allowable purchases  and unit costs within each  block of  resources to
 be sold.  After allowing  sufficient time for  the dischargers  to
 evaluate their  alternatives, a sale date would  be set  and  all dis-
 chargers summoned.   The actual  sale would then  proceed as  discussed
 earl ier.

      The board  may wish,  for the  first year of  operation,  to  sell at
 extremely low prices  in order to  evaluate how  the program will
 function.   At each successive sale the unit price could  be increased
 until  the foregone benefits  are recovered.  The frequency of  sales
 would  be a  matter for the board to decide.  They may wish  to  hold a
 sale  annually,  semi-annually,  during  low and high resource seasons,
 etc.   This  decision would have to be  made known in  advance to the
 purchasers.  Utilizing the  high and low  resource seasons would permit
 flexibility  of  treatment  plant  operations  and  take  advantage  of a
 natural  situation.   Such  an  option is  not  now presently  available.  At
 present,  the engineer must  design for  the  'crrtical' summer low-flow
 condi t ions  only.

     The  installation  of  new waste producing  industries  has always
 posed problems  to any  community.   It  is  not anticipated  that  the re-
 source sales concept will  in  any  way  alleviate  such problems but
 environmental control  should  be nade easier.  This can be illustrated
 by a comparison with  current  methods.  If  uniform treatment is required
 in a basin,  all new  industries  in  the  basin will be made to provide
 the same  degree of treatment.   After  a period of time,  the receiving
waters are again  overloaded  and the uniform treatment  requirement then
 upgraded.   In the meantime,  however,  the  problem wi11  persist.

     A resource sales  board would  first  have the opportunity  to decide
whether  the  new  industry was  even  acceptable and/or desirable.  If
not, they may deny the  right  to purchase, or allocate only very little.
 If the industry  is acceptable and/or desirable,  the interest groups
 (Board Members)  would  have participated  jointly  in this  decision, and
                                 -166-

-------
would therefore have made some prior agreement regarding cost-sharing
of the  increased waste discharge.  In any event,  the regional
beneficiaries, through the board, have maintained complete control
over utilizing the resources available.

     The operations would not end with the sale of resources.
The water quality must be monitored as well as the benefit evalua-
tions rechecked.  The overall picture of benefits versus quality
will constantly be changing, resulting in a varying price to purchasers
at each sale.  It will also be necessary to maintain surveillance
over the dischargers.  The payment of discharge fees will not  in
itself assume compliance, any more than present methods of waste
treatment are assumed satisfactory.

     It can probably be ssen by now that the actual routine is  very
similar to that of existing state control agencies, with the following
major exceptions:

     1)   Planning, development and management of regional resources
         are carried out entirely at the regional level;
     2)   All users are represented in resource quantity, price,
         and allocation decisions;
     3)   Arbitrary standards are not established but only minimum
         water quality standards adhered to;
     k)   Dischargers pay for resources utilized;  and
     5)   The unit price for the use of the resource increases
         wi th i ts depletion.

Budgetary Considerations

     The proposed board will not exist entirely upon funds collected
through  taxation.  It will function essentially as a private cor-
poration or public utility and be paid by users of its product.  It
wi11 differ from governmental agencies, private corporations and/or
public utilities in the following respects:

     1)   It will not have to play the annual guessing game of
         preparing a budget request for the coming year, hoping to
         get the funds, and having to spend them;
     2)   It will not necessarily have to continually grow in size
         in order to provide for a growing community;
     3)   Due to product limitations it will not have to continually
         expand in order to fulfill demands; and
     4)   It will not be interested in showing a profit at the end of
         the year.

     The first year ofqoeration may require catalyst or  'seed' funds
from private grants, state and federal aid.  Beyond this point the
need for such assistance should either diminish or disappear.   Funds
are then secured through resource sales, part of which will come from
                                  -167-

-------
municipalities using tie  resource.   It may appear that this would
impose an additional tax upon the citizens but this is not
necessarily true.  By  localizing the management program there would
be of necessity a decrease  in the operations and sizes of state
and  federal agencies.  Accordingly, there should be a decrease in
the  amount of tax dollars required.  It is difficult to determine
whether or not the taxes required for payment to the board would equal
or exceed the anticipated decrease  in state and federal  taxes, but
it appears to the author that there will be a greater return for
each dollar spent.

     The revenue collected should theoretically amount to no more
than the benefit dollars which had been lost'annually.  From this
revenue must come the necessary funds for salaries and operations.
Any  remaining funds may be utilized in any or all  of the following
ways:

     l)   Research pertaining to local problems such as shoaling,
         treatment studies,  storm water, etc.
     2)   Development of recreational areas, marinas, so as to
         enhance the stated water quality level objective;
     3)   Subsidizing of desirable but needy installations; grants
         in aid,  revenue reduction and debt retirement;  and
     k)   Scholarships

     Although  the Board must make considerable effort, in essence all
that is  being  done is accomplishing at the regional level, with
regional  funds, what is being attempted by the state and federal
governments for larger areas.
                                    -168-

-------
                            SECTION V

                           A TEST CASE

      It was somewhat evident right from the start that this  research
study could never really be verified practically without the
sanction of many individuals and agencies.  It was also apparent that
approval at the State level would require considerable local or
regional support and desire.  For these reasons it was decided that
the proposed allocation method would be presented to some local  or
regional group before any serious attempts were made to approach the
State.

     Several possibilities existed; the City of Syracuse, Onondaga
County, the Oneida Lake Association, or any of a number of others.
After considerable thought, it was decided to make contact with the
Eastern Oswego Basin Regional Water Resources Planning and Development
Board (EOB).

     The reasons for selecting the EOB as a test case may be listed as
follows:

     1)  The EOB was a duly authorized local board as specified
         by state legislation.
     2)  The EOB had been in existence approximately three years
         and by this time should be somewhat familiar with the
         problems involved in water resources planning as well
         as the terminology of the field.
     3)  The EOB represents a five county area, based on hydrological
         rather than political  subdivisions.
     4)  The board members are selected by interest group; e.g.
         water supply, industry, etc.
     5)  Onondaga Lake, a lake (and its tributaries) for which there
         exists some benefit determinations, lies fully within
         the EOB jurisdiction.
     6)  The EOB has no regulatory powers and it would be of interest  to
         know if they would want such and how they would be used.
     7)  The EOB appears  to be, in most respects, the type of local
         board envisioned in the proposed allocation system.

     The EOB is one of eleven local river basin planning boards
operating in New York State.  The legal authority for such boards is
to be found in the N.Y.S.  Conservation Law, Part V, and is discussed
by May  (28).  Before discussing the reaction of the EOB to the proposal,
it is essential that the legislated activities and composition of the
board be briefly outlined.  Although such boards are local in nature,
and in fact are created only following petitions by local piitical sub-
divisions,  the New York State Water Resources Commission exercises what
is essentially complete control o/er the board's existence.  As May (28)
points out, "The Commission has complete authority over whether a board
is to be created, who will be members of each board, what type and
amount of personnel  and technical services are to be provided, whether
                                 -169-

-------
 the final  comprehensive plan is  appropriate,  and when  the board will
 be terminated".   Section ^37 of  Part  V  states  that  thirty days after
 the Commission has approved or disapproved  of the final  comprehensive
 plan,  the  board shall  expire.

      May continued by  adding,  "though intended to allow  regionalization
 of water planning activity, the  legislation does not  insistoi extensive
 direct citizen participation.  Board  members  are picked  by  interest
 group  and  are usually  well  informed on  the  local water resource situation.
 However, the public has  no  control over these  men,  and should a member
 not represent his county or interest, there is  no recourse  for citizens.
 County involvement is  minimal  during  operation  of the boards".  "A final
 ambigious  statutory point is development.  Although called  planning and
 development  boards, there are  absolutely no development  powers in
 the legislation.   The  boards help  tocfetermine  policy, then  must turn
 the plan over to other units for implementation.  The Commission does
 not even have to follow  Board  recommendations  for new  legislation;
 the statute  only demands recommendation of  '...legislation  to accomplish
 and further  the  planning and development program of the water resources
 of the State.1  (Section  439)"

     Preliminary  meetings with the EOB  chairman and the  state staff
 engineer assigned to the EOB revealed some  interest in the  proposal
 and arrangements  were  made  for attendance at one of the  board's monthly
 meetings to  make  a brief presentation.

     At  the  first  meeting on 2k  September 1969  the board was presented
with the chronological events  leading to the  investigation, the
 purpose  of the study,  and a  short discussion of current  abatement methods.

     The meeting was attended by only four of  the seven board members,
 three  staff  engineers, and  a number of guests.  Although no questions were
specifically  asked  of  the board,  it was anticipated that lively discussion
would  follow  the  presentation, due in part to  the controversial  nature
of  the subject matter.   The  discussion period, however, was quite dis-
appointing.  The  questions  that were asked emanated from guests rather
than the EOB members or  engineers.  Needless to say, the lack of response
was even more puzzling than  a negative one would have been.

     In an attempt  to evaluate what had happened, the follaving possible
contributing  factors were noted:

     a)  The board members were not a/are of current abatement methods
         and were unable to  comprehend the magnitude of the problem.
     b)  They were aware of  current nsthods but were unable to form
         opi n ions.
     c)  They were reluctant to speak due to the presence of state
         engi neers.
     d)  The hour was late,  the meeting  room was hot and  stuffy  and the
         uncompensated board members  had already devoted  a long  day to
         the board's business.

     Comments made at later meetings  indicate  that  the problem was  due
                                   -170-

-------
to the last item rather than apathy or non-understanding.

     The discussion was closed with a request for a second pre-
sentation at which time the proposal would be discussed in greater
depth.

     At the close of the meeting the chairman,  despite  the non-
responsiveness, expressed interest in what was  presented,  looked
forward to hearing the full  proposal, and hoped that a  second
presentation would be forthcoming at an early date.  There was,
however, no specific date established.

     On October 17, six days prior to the board's next  meeting
a phone call to the staff engineer revealed that the board was  not
expecting a second presentation at the October meeting  and that  per-
haps a presentation in December or January would be more in order.
Within the hour, however, a phone call was received from the same
engineer stating that the chairman did desire a second  presentation
at the October meeting.  This seemingly insignificant event may  be
quite revealing with regard to the politics of local planning
boards.

     At the second EOB meeting on October 23 the seven  members  were
asked several  questions regarding a hypothetical local  regulatory
board.  Prior to this, however, there was a recapitulation of  the
first meeting and a statement of objectives, as follows:

     a)   To regulate vaater resources at a regional  level;
     b)   To decide water quality levels based on regional  desires
         and knowledge of costs aid benefits;
     c)   To sell resources for quality preservation and generation
         of cap!tal; and
     d)   To use the capital  for the conservation business.

     A somewhat hypothetical situation was then described for  the
board members, consisting of the following presumptions:

     a)   A 1 aw has been passed which conveys to the board full
         regulatory powers over water resources within  the Eastern
         Oswego River Basin;
     b)   Minimum water quality standards and treatment  requirements
         have been established by the State and/or Federal governments;
     c)   The beneficial use of Onondaga Lake is the key water
         resources issue within the basin; and
     d)   The interest group representation on the board remains  the
         same.

     The EOB members were then asked questions regarding each  of the
above.
                                   -171-

-------
 ].   Concerning Their Role as  a  Regulatory  Body

      a)   Do you want to be such a  body  as  described above and are
          there any  specific objections  to  being  such?

      The board members  were unanimous  in their feeling that
 regional boards be  given regulatory  as  well as planning powers.  They
 went further to say that such a board should be  composed of  lay people
 and not  professionals,  that they did not   want any state or  federal
 representation in a voting position, that  they would need a  supporting
 professional  staff, firm legal  basis, and  an approved plan upon which
 to  base  decis i ons.

      b)   Do you, as a board or  as  individuals, feel the competence
          necessary  to deal  with  the  various types of problems facing
          regulatory bodies?

      Again  the  members  were unanimous in stating that they could function
 efficiently, with the stipulation  that  they would need a competent
 supporting  staff.

      c)   As  a  regulatory  body,  how far  do  you feel your jurisdiction
          should extend?

      The members were in  agreement that they should have authority over
water resources activities  within  the basin.

 2.   Concerning  the  Establishment of Water  Quality and Treatment Standards

      a)   As a  regulatory  body given  the primary authority you feel you
          need,  what  is  your impression  of  the state and/or federal
          government establishing water  quality and treatment standards?

      Not  all members responded  to-.this  question,  but those who did
expressed the feeling that  the standards set by the higher authorities
were  not  always rational  and that a preferred method would be for
such  authorities to establish  guidelines or mini mum water quali ty
standards for waters leaving basins,  but that the manner in which the
standards are met and maintained should be a matter for the  regional
basin boards to decide.   They  added that a knowledge of benefits and
costs  is necessary before deciding upon any abatement program,  and that
the  local boards would be  in the best position to make such determinations
In addition, they acknowledged that objectives  and programs  in  bordering
basins would have to be somewhat compatable but that this  would be pre-
ferable to uniform statewide standards  or  requirements.

     b)  Do you feel that you  could reet  minimum requirements, achieve
         basin objectives,  and remain compatible  with neighboring
         basin boards?

     The members could  foresee no difficulty in doing all  three.

3.   Concerning Representation  on the  Board.
                                   -172-

-------
      a)  Do you  feel  that the  interest group representation is
         adequate?

      They  felt they had a good cross-section, and that no alterations
would be required.

      b)  Is the  size  of the board  in any way limiting?

      The members expressed the opinion that one man representing
each  of five  interest groups, as well as two at-1arge-members,
provided sufficient membership for the areas in which they have been
deali ng.

4.   Concerning Onondaga Lake

      a)  As representatives of the local water using groups, what
         is the  desire for the future of Onondaga Lake.

      Once  again  the members exhibited unanimity in stating that
Onondaga Lake should  be considered for use as water-contact recreation
but  for no higher quality water use.

      b)  Inasmuch as  the lake  is not now of such a quality, what
         information would be needed before making a decision as
         to whether or not it should be upgraded to such a degree?

      The responses to this question were as follows:

      1.  If the  recreation is the goal, we must determine if it can
         be achieved  at any cost;
      2.  The willingness of the people to pay governs whether it
         should  be done;
      3.  We need to determine the aereal extent of beneficiaries;
      k.  We must compare Onondaga Lake with others nearby and
         determine need for additional recreation;
      5-  A set of priorities is needed;
      6.  In addition  to priorities, we need a set of various objectives
         and alternatives to each objective; and
      7.  We need the  costs of each alternative and the benefits to be
         derived from each.

      It can be seen from the responses that the board members are quite
aware of the steps that should be taken before making a decision as
important  as this one is to the residents within the economic considera-
tions, and not apt to make an emotional or irrational decision.

     At this point in time the board members appeared to be quite
excited about a  situation that could easily have taken place, one
which they could deal with given the essential  facts.  They began
asking about costs of various projects and benefits to be derived.
There were also questions about the ranner in which the allocation pro-
posal would be implemented.
                                   -173-

-------
      It must be pointed out at this time that  the principal  investi-
 gators had not been involved in studies  regarding the  treatment of
 wastes entering the lake.  They were,  however,  aware of  two  proposals
 which from only cursory review would have achieved essentially
 the same results;  quality suited for water contact recreation.  The
 first called for secondary treatment of  domestic  and  industrial waste
 at a new treatment plant, while the second included provisions for
 the holding and subsequent treatment of  storm water.   The  costs were
 $50 million and $150 million respectively.

      This may have been a poor example because  of the  disparity of
 costs,  but at the  time they were the only two alternatives known.
 The important point, however,  is that  the board members  felt  the
 $50 million price  tag to be too high.  At 6  1/2 percent  interest
 for 30  years  the annual  cost would  have  been approximately $3.8
 million.   The members were then made aware of the benefit  determinations
 for Onondaga  Lake.   When informed that the annual  benefits for up-
 grading the lake to water-contact recreational  quality were ap-
 proximately $3-2 million,  over and  above the annual cost of $3.8 million,
 their attitude  changed completely.   They now felt  that the investment
 was worthwhile.  The most  significant  comment was  made by  the chairman
 in  calling  for  some method other than  assessed  evaluation  to be used
 in  raising  the  revenue.   At this time the principal  investigators were
 asked to  return  for the  next board  meeting on November 26  to present
 the allocation-pricing proposal.

      At the third  meeting  with  the  board the members were  first in-
 formed  of  the methodology  used  in calculating annual benefits.
 Following  this  discussion  the  members  felt the  benefits  to be under-
 estimated and the  value  of a clean  lake  to be greater  than that
 reported.   They were introduced  next to  the allocation-pricing
 scheme  discussed in  Chapter II.  Time was not sufficient to permit them
 to  fully comprehend  all  that went into the methodology but they were
 interested  and  intrigued at the  proposal   for the  following reasons;

      a)   It utilized benefits  as a  means  of charging for v/aste disposal;
      b)   It provided management with an  easily  administered program;
      c)  Contrary  to other utility  economics, it charged more for
          increased  usage;  and
      d)  It provided  revenue for additional conservation efforts.

     The members once  again  demonstrated  an enthusiasm and were
 particularly  impressed with  the  possibility of  raising funds  locally and
 utilizing such funds for park development, debt retirement, subsidization,
 etc.  Most  of the questions  and  comments   concerned these matters.   No
 objections were noted, and  interest  appeared to be high.  Those in
 attendance exhibited an understanding of  the concept about as well as
 could be expected for  a one  hour discussion.   It should be noted that
 the meeting was attended by  all  the board members, several  staff
engineers, and one  or  tv/o higher ranking  state engineers at the regional
or district level.    Before  closing  the meeting  the chairman asked  for
time during which he and the other members would discuss and  digest the
proposal,  and that  following this they would contact the authors.
                                  -174-

-------
     On December 17 a letter was sent to the chairman  thanking
him and the board for their time and asking several  questions  re-
garding their response to the proposal.   He was  also asked  if
another meeting would be possible during which unclear issues
would be discussed as well as future efforts.

     A reply (29) was received dated February  9, 1970.   In  part
the letter stated:

     "I would be remiss if I  did not indicate  that I  and my
constituents were extremely impressed with the concept presented
and note the forethought of you and your staff for the ingenious
technique and proposal presented.  We, as I  am sure  you are aware,
are extremely interested in the application of a river basin
authority such as you proposed which, I  would  suspect,  has  never
before been implemented in the eastern United  States.   We,  as a
lay citizen board, can envision many of the far  reaching implica-
tions of this mode of regulatory discipline to protect the  future
of our water resources in the Oswego River Basin.

     The board at this stage of the planning process has not yet
addressed itself, in specifics, to financial institutions or
arrangements, implementation and administration.  However,  we are
keenly aware of the problems, possibilities, and alternatives to
accomplish the development of our planning efforts.   We would
appreciate your attendance and presentation at our February 25,  1970
meeting (executive session) to answer some spec!fie points of
concern to the members as I sense we are not yet fully prepared  to
answer the questions you have posed.  A list of these specific points
is being completed and will be forwarded to you  prior to the meeting".

     The meeting was attended on February 25 without having received
any such list.   The whole board, staff engineers,  and  the same higher
ranking engineers mentioned at the previous meeting, attended this
meeting.  No formal presentation had been planned  for this  meeting
except to request the board,  if they felt the  proposal  had  merit,
to approach the Water Resources Commission with  the  possibility  of
utilizing the proposal for a one year trial  period.   The following
feelings were then expressed:

     a)  Several board members said they did not understand the
         proposal;
     b)  The proposal was too complicated and  innovative for them
         to comprehend it;
     c)  They did not want to approach the Commission  but saw no
         objection to the principal investigators  doing so;
     d)  State engineers felt that the lack of knowledge concerning
         the dynamics of lakes precluded using such  a methodology;
     e)  Perhaps another lake would be better  suited than Onondaga;
     f)  They didn't know what was expected of them; and
     g)  The staff engineer felt that the proposal was a viable  one
         but in view of current events concerning  the Commission he
         did not feel it was  wise to approach  them.
                                  -175-

-------
      This last comment pertains  to tie fact  that  the  Erie-Niagara
 Board, one of the other local  boards, had already  finished  their
 planning stage and was at that time  making  a  strong  demand  for
 creation of regional  development boards.  Similar  in  every  respect
 to the local  planning boards,  they would play a  major role  in
 plan implementation.   The Water  would play  a  major role  in  plan
 implementation.   The  Water Resources Commission  is obviously faced
 with a problem of establishing a precedent  upon  which the other
 local  boards  may  build a case.   At the time of this writing, the
 issue  had not been resolved.

      Despite  there having been no strong objection to the proposal,
 the comments  of  the board were  rather startling.  Their attitude,
 enthusiasm and interest had completely reversed  and  they appeared
 to be  opposed to  the  concept  for no  apparent  or  spoken reason.
 Further discussion was out of  the question but a final request was
 made that the board arrange for a meeting between Commission personnel
 and the principal  investigators.   This  they agreed to do.

     A follow-up  letter was sent to  the chairman within the week
 following the board meeting requesting that an appointment with the
 Commission be arranged as  soon as possible due to  the time  limitations
 of the research contract.   No  such meeting has been  arranged.

     A meeting did take place, however, in May,  1970  between the
 board  chairman and a  consultant to the research project.  it was an
 informal  conversation  meant to determine what  had  changed the
 board's attitude.   The following comments by  the chairman are taken
 from that meeting  (30):

     a)   The  board is  a body of  non  professionals  in  water  resource
          management who are unpaid,  overworked,  and  lack the time to
          read  pertinent materials  or attend meetings.

     b)   The  board is  not  an "action"  agency  and he doubts  if they
          really want  to be.

     c)   Changing  the  board would  require State  action which involves
          lengthy delays.
     d)   No one on  the  board has  the  desire to be activist.

     e)   The board  tends  to be powerless, non-grasping and non-desiring.
     f)   Onondaga  Lake  was  a poor example due  to there being too many
          vested interests,  the lake  being a special province, and the
          fact  that  it  lies  entirely within one county.

     g)  The proposal  was  too new, strange and different.

     The  chairman  also  stated that one of the board members had
mentioned a system of  charges being  used on  the West  Coast.   He said
he would  talk  to that  member, raise  the question once more with the
board,   and then notify  the  authors as to the possibility  of further
negotiations with  the  board.  As  of August,  1970, there has  been no
contact with the EOB.
                                  -176-

-------
     An evaluation of both the EOB and the meetings with them
 may be summarized as follows:

     a)  The board members, through informational meetings, guest
         speakers, etc., possess a working knowledge of the
         regional water  resources picture.
     b)  The EOB, by statute or necessity, appears to be more
         interested  in matters of water supply, conservation and
         flood  control than in pollution abatement.
     c)  The members are aoparently aware that certain problems
         exist  in the matter of pollution abatement, but evidently
         are-not close enough to such problems to identify and
         evaluate them.
     d)  Through an evolutionary process or by following the
         example of the  Erie-Niagara Board, the EOB has some interest
         in plan implementation by regional units.
     e)  The EOB accepts the proposed methodology as a means of
         administration  but is not prepared to be the prime movers
         in obtaining the enabling legislation.
     f)  The structure of the EOB as a local river basin planning
         board  does not  allow for an effective means of plan de-
         velopment and implementation.

     One responsibility  of the EOB is to study and investigate the
 use of water resources within the basin.  The board has apparently
 done this by virtue of guest lecturers at monthly meetings.
 Through this exchange of information the EOB is to become familiar
 with the present and future problems of basin problems.  It was
 the observation of the investigators, however, that individuals
 on the board were being  courteous rather than interested, unless
 the topic concerned a problem from within their area of representation.
 During the meetings attended by the investigators the topics covered
 items such as water levels in the Barge Canal, shoaling of Oneida
 Lake, potential reservoir sites in the vicinity of Auburn, N.Y., etc.
 These were of such a local nature so as to potentially lose the
 interest of representatives from other areas.  A subsidiary problem
 is the fact that the solutions to the problems being discussed may
 only be applicable to that particular problem and. not to similar ones
 i n the bas i n.

     The discussions on  the proposed methodology stirred up considerably
 more interest than other topics heard.  It is not clear, however,
whether the interest was aroused due to the new concepts being pre-
 sented, or to the potential for having a "solution" for the entire
 basin, or both.  Many comments and questions were received from each
 member, an event unwitnessed by the investigators at other presentations

     During the course of the meetings water pollution was a topic
 that remained virtually  unmentioned.  It was apparent that the members
have not been deeply involved with matters of water quality control.
The enabling legislation for the EOB does not specifically refer to
water pollution but does call  for the planning of the water resources
 uses for the maximum benefit of the people.  If the restriction is
placed on the term "water resources" so as to include everything
but quality control, it  is doubtful that plans for development can be


                                  -177-

-------
 consistent with maximizing benefits.   The  EOB  presents a plan
 for water resources development  and  a  second  agency  is  in the
 meantime doing the same for quality  control.   It  is  not a fore-
 gone conclusion that the end result will be incompatibility, but
 it is a strong probability.

      Throughout the series of  meetings with the EOB  there were
 definite statements, as well as  subtle hints, that the board felt
 that plan implementation should  be carried  out  by the same or
 similar boards responsible for the plan.  Several members exhibited
 their belief that  development  and enforcement would  be better
 handled by a regional  agency relatively  free  of political
 constraints.   At  least two members were  emphatic  in  stating that
 regional  boards would  be better  suited than state or federal agencies
 and that  there should  be no_ state or federal  representation on such
 boards.   On  this  last  point the  authors  disagree  in  that representation
 by both,  at  least  at a non-voting level would be  desirable in order
 to assure compliance with  policies and standards, approach compatibility
 with  contiguous basins,  and keep the board  aware of  financing programs.
 The attraction for regional  boards, however,  is supported by the
 authors.

      It  is uncertain to what extent the  EOB is willing to make their
 feeling known  to higher authorities.  There was no reluctance to
 express their  opinion  until  the  last meeting.  At that time, in the
 presence  of  New York State engineers other  than the assigned staff,
 no support for such  boards  was heard from the members.  The investi-
 gators  left  the meeting  with the feeling that external pressures were
 exerted on the board to discontinue negotiations.  This is an unfounded
 belief, but  certainly  one  which cannot be discounted.  The complete
 reversal  of  the board's  support  remains  unexplained.

      Mention was made  of the efforts of  the Erie-Niagara Board to
 secure authority for a  regional  implementation agency.  It was also
 stated by the  staff  engineer,  that this effort was creating somewhat of
 a  turmoil with  the Water Resources Commission and that a proposal  such
 as  the one being discussed,  although "viable and interesting", would at
 that  time only  lend  to  the  confusion.  The board members, in addition
 to  doing  an  'about face' appeared to be upset about something.   The
 formality and  relaxed atmosphere present  at earlier meetings were  com-
 pletely absent.  Nothing conclusive can be drawn from this except  that
 it  supports the theory of external  pressure having been applied.   This
belief is strengthened by  the  total  lack  of criticism concerning the
proposed methodology.  There is little  doubt that the proposal  was ac-
ceptable to the EOB members.  Complimentary comments, exuberant
suggestions,  and requests for more information lead to this  conclusion.
No  criticism was received at any  meeting.  The reasons for their
 interest and acceptance have already  been noted.  In  view of the stated
reasons, answers to questions asked  of  the members,  and lack of reasons
for not pursuing the project, the investigators  are again led to the
conclusion that it was not the  decision of the board  to discontinue
further efforts.  This belief  is  strengthened  further by a comment made
                                -178-

-------
by the Chairman of the EOB when asked if the board would support
the  investigators in presenting the proposal to the Water Resources
Commission.  He indicated that this has already been done.   No
additional explanation was offered and the manner in which  it  was
said implied that none was needed.

     The position of the EOB, as well as other such planning boards,
relative to existing state controls is questionable.  The absence
of board authority, when considered with the State's complete
control over the board, casts doubt on the success of such  a
structure.  Some of the shortcomings of such boards have already
been discussed by May  (28).  In addition board members are  un-
compensated for their efforts.  This may not be a severe problem
but certainly provides little incentive for maximum efforts on the
part of the board members.  This should not be construed as criticism
of individual members, but of the manner in which the boards are
made to function.

     Board meetings are held monthly.  At the meetings, which  last for
only a few hours, the members are informed of the staff's efforts
during the preeding month.  In other words, the members have very
little exposure to the many issues, and then for only a short  period
of time.  As indicated by the Chairman, the members have little
contact with board activities outside of the monthly meetings.  The
reading of pertinent printed matter is probably at a minimum due to
outside interests and  lack of compensation.

     It is the opinion of the investigators that the EOB is  fortunate
in having assigned to them a very competent, clear thinking staff
engineer.  This is brought out due to the fact that the staff  engineer
for such boards is probably the one that dictates the direction taken
by the boards.  The brunt of the work falls upon him and his sub-
ordinates.  He in turn makes reports to the board and suggests courses
of action.  Inasmuch as he is a state employee assigned to the board,
his thinking is apt to coincide with that of existing state policy.
This  can be acceptable or not, but may tend to dull imaginative and
innovative actions taken by the board members.  There can be no question
that  a chairman could be greatly influenced by the staff engineer. This
potential problem, as  real as it may be with other such boards, was  not
demonstrated to any great extent by the EOB.

    The local river basin planning boards are examples of the  efforts
to establish "home rule" with regard to water resources.   The  concept
is admirable, and desirable in the mind of the author, but  under the
current legislation it is doubtful that such boards will  serve to  be
any more than "social pacifiers".  The criticisms to be found  with
them outweigh by far their advantages.  If there is some doubt concerning
their abilities as useful planning boards with the constraints presently
placed upon them, there can be no doubt as to their future as  develop-
ment  or regulatory boards.  The removal of these constraints,  in
combination with needed legal revisions opens the door for what could
be very effective regional authorities.
                                  -179-

-------
                            SECTION  VI

                         ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
     The cooperation of the Eastern  Oswego  River  Basin Planning
Board is acknowledged with sincere thanks,  especially the  contri-
butions made by Mr.  Thomas Dyer,  Chairman,  and  Mr.  Robert  Tribukait,
Staff Engineer.

     Expressions of gratitude are also extended to  Professor
Roscoe Martin, Consultant to the  investigation, for his  advice,
critical comments, and overall  assistance,  and  to Mr. John May
and Mr. John Keenan for their contributions in  the  review  of existing
river basin boards.

     The support of the project by the Federal  Water Quality Admin-
istration is acknowledged with sincere appreciation.

     Thanks are also extended to  Professor  Frank  Monger, who served
as a Consultant in the initial  stages of the investigation.
                                     -181-

-------
                            SECTION VI I

                            REFERENCES
  1.  Federal Water Pollution Control  Act of B56,  as  amended, PL660,
     84th Congress of the United States.

  2.  Wicker, A. R., Article appearing in the  Syracuse  Herald-Journal,
     Friday, Nov. 28, 1968.

  3.  Fox, Irving K.,  "We Can Solve Our Water  Problems", Water Resources
     Research, Vol. 2, 1966, pg. 617.

  4.  Ruling of the New York State Supreme Court appearing  in the
     Syracuse Herald-Journal, April  12, 1970.

  5.  Editorial in the Syracuse Herald-Journal, June  7,  1970.

  6.  "Industrial  Incentives for Water  Pol 1ution Abatement:,  Institute
     of Public Administration, New York, N.Y., Feb.  1965,  USDHEW, PHS.

  7.  Kneese, Allen V., "Economics and Resources Engineering", A.S.C.E.
     Meeting, June 22, 1966.

  8.  Gaffney, Mason,  "Applying Economic Controls", Bull, of the Atomic
     Scientists,  June 1965, p. 20.

 9.  Bramer, H. C., "Economics and Water Pollution Abatement", Water
     and Sewage Works 113,  2, 54, Feb.  1966.

10.  Kneese, A. V., "Water  Pollution:  Economic Aspects  and Research
     Needs", Resources for  the Future,  Washington, D.  C.

11.  Boyce,  E., "Inherent Difference  Between Water and  Other Natural
     Resources",  Water Resources and  the Law, Univ.  of  Michigan Law
     School , Ann  Arbor,  1958.

12.  Theobald, Robert, The  Challenge  of Abundance, A Mentor Book published
     by New  American  Library, New York  City,  1961 .

13.  Hammond, R.  J.,  Benefit-Cost Analysis  and Water-Pollution Control,
     Rood Research Institute, Misc. Publ.  No. 13, Stanford Univ., Aug.
     31, 1959.

14.  Milliman, J.  W., "The  Case for Private Decision-Making in a System of
     Water Law",  Rand Corp., Santa Monica,  Sept.  1958.

15.  Kerri,  K. D.,  "An Economic Approach to Water Quality  Control",
     Presented at 38th Annual  Conference of WPCF, Atlantic City, Oct. 10-14,
     1965.
                                    -183-

-------
 16.   Kneese,  Allen  V.,  The  Economics  of  Regional Water Quality
      Management,  Published  for  Resources  for the Future,  Inc. by
      Johns  Hopkins  Press, Baltimore,  1964.

 17.   Kapp,  Karl William, "Social  Costs of Business Enterprise"
      "Controlling Pollution"  edited by Marshall I. Goldman, Prentice-
      Hall  1967, pg.  82-90.

 18.   McBeath,  B.  C.,  "A Study of  Economic Effects of Treatment Plant
      and Stream Parameters  on Waste Water Disposal", Inst. Eng. Econ.
      Systems,  Report  EEP-21 July  1966, Stanford University.

 19-   Nemerow,  N.L., "Water  Pollution  Capacity Resources Allocation",
      Syracuse  University, Department  of Civil Engineering, Research
      Report No. 9,  1966.

 20.   Sumitomo, H., "Calculation of a  Pollution Index",  Un-published
      Report to the Syracuse University Department of Civil Engineering,
      1967.

 21.   Faro, R.C. and Nemerow,  N.L., "Measurement of the  Total Dollar
      Benefit of Water Pol 1ution Control" 2nd National Symposium on San.
      Engr. Res. Devel.  and Des ign, Cornel 1 University, July 16, 1969.

 22,   Nemerow, N.L. and  Faro,  R. C., "Measurement of the Total Dollar
      Benefit of Water Pollution Control" 2nd National Symposium on San.
      Engr. Res. Devel.  and Design, Cornell University,  July 16, 1969-

 23.   Kinney, John E., "Impact on  Industry",  Industrial  Water Engineering,
      Vol. 5, No.  1,  Jan. 1968, pp. 30-33.

 2k.   Kneese, A.B., "Approaches to Regional Water Quality Management",
      Prepared for the National Conference on Pollution  and our Environment.
      Canadian Council of Resource Ministers, Montreal,  Quebec, Oct.  31~
      Nov. if, 1966, 47 pp.  (RfF Reprint #64,  19&7) .

 25.   Martin, R.C., Birkhead,  G.  S., Burkhead, J.  and Munger, F. J.,  I960,
      River Basin Administration and the Delaware,  Syracuse University
      Press,  390 pp.

26.   Deininger, Rolf, "The Economics  of Regional Fbl1ution Control  Systems",
      Industrial V/aste Conference,  1966, Purdue University.

27.   Fair,  Gordon  M.,  "Pollution Abatement in the  Ruhr  District"  J.W.P.C.
      Fed. 3k_,  8,  749,  August  1962.

28.  May, John, "Intrastate  Arrangements  for Water  Resources Planning and
     Development,  Part  II, The few  York Experience",  Syracuse University,
     Maxwel1  School,  Feb.  1970.
                                   -184-

-------
29.  Letter from the Chairman of the  Eastern Oswego River Basin Planning
     Board.

30.  Notes taken from meeting of Project  Consultant and Chairman of
     Eastern Oswego River Bas in Planning  Board.

31.  Keenan, John, "Intrastate Arrangements  for Water Resources Planning
     and Development, Part I, Overview",  Syracuse University Maxwell
     School, Feb.  1970.

32.  "Developing and Managing the Water  Resources of New York State",
     N.Y.S. Water Resources  Commission,  Div. of Water Resources, N.Y.S.
     Conservation Dept.,  Albany,  N.Y. ,  1967.
                                     -185-

-------
                            SECTION VI I I

                              APPENDIX


     Since regional environmental management appears to be ideally
suited for efficient and equitable pollution abatement and since
it also can be evidently extremely difficult to initiate,  we en-
couraged our consultant to contribute an  appendix to this  project.
The appendix is entended to provide fie reader with basic operational
fundamentals of environmental management  at all levels of  government.
From an evaluation of this the reader may be able to draw  his own  con-
clusions for pollution abatement administration.

          ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT by
                           Roscoe C. Martin

1.  Envi ronment, Natural Resources, and Publi c Action

     Environment is everything, everywhere.  One dictionary has  it
as "The aggregate of surrounding things,  conditions, or influences".
Since this carries no limiting word, one  would be hard put to imagine  a more
inclusive definition.  More concretely,  one might view it  as the natural
physical system within which life endures, except that life itself
(more specifically all living things) is  part of the environment.   But
since a vantage point must be established from which to view the
environment, let that vantage point be man himself.  From  the beginning
of time, men have assumed that the environment exists solely for the
benefit of their kind, and have conducted themselves accordingly.   It
would seem late in the day to attempt to  change the fundamental  focus
of all recorded history.  Let us therefore modify the dictionary rendition
to accord with that central focus: the environment is the  aggregate of
resources required for the maintenance of human life.

     Here a new element enters into the discussion: resource (or
resources).  A resource may be considered to be a commodity, thing, or
attribute which is or which may be made available for human use. Since
the environment exists without reference  to time, place, or technology,
it would seem proper to limit the concept to natural (as opposed to ran-
made) resources.  A natural resource  is  a resource which exists  (or which
may be summoned i nto bei ng) as a bounty of nature.

     The basic natural resources were long held to be water, land, and
forests; ail—atmosphere, oxygen--was taken for granted.  To these three
"basic" resources  minerals and fuels came to be added in time.  Subse-
quently sunshine and precipitation, that  is to say climate, and  inferentially
the growing season, were added.  Current  emphasis is on water (as
throughout human history) the atmosphere  space and the ocean.  As  a final
and over-riding resource may be mentioned people who, primarily  users
(sometimes abusers and even destroyers)  of resources, are  themselves a
basic element in the environment.  Natural resources thus  broadly  con-
ceived (and the list is undoubtedly incomplete) would appear to be all-
inclusive of the elements ssential to human life, and so to warrant
                                      -187-

-------
 identification with "the environment".   The  trend toward  amalgamation of
 the two concepts is seen in the recent  call  for establishment  of  a
 national department of resource environment.   If this  title  adds  any-
 thing to the familiar concept of a department  of natural  resources,
 it is to make that concept more al1-embracive.   Those  who talk about
 the environment are therefore talking about  natural  resources  broadly
 concei ved.

      The history of mankind is  one of unremitting effort  to neke the
 environment more supportive of  the purposes  of man.  Man's utilization
 of the  resources of nature may  be said  to  have under-gone five stages.
 The first was that of simple and straightforward use.  Use,  however,
 often led to a second stage, one characterized by misuse.  The conse-
 quences  of  misuse were several.   Among  them  may be mentioned,  as  a
 third stage, depletion.   The debasement  of resources marked  the fourth
 stage.   The ultimate result of  the process of  debasement  comes  with the
 destruction wh ich marks  the fifth  and final  stage of man's use (and
 misuse)of  the environment.

      The process  by which  acceptable  resource  use degenerated  into
 misuse,  which in  turn led  to the depletion,  debasement, or (sometimes)
 destruction of natural  resources,  passed unnoticed for a  very  long time.
 For one  thing,  the  resources seemed inexhaustible; for another, the
 people using them were comparatively  few and widely scattered;  for
 yet another,  the  American  doctrine of laissez  faire countenanced  individual
 and corporate exploitation  of the  resources  virtually without  restriction.
 Thus  the five stages  of  resource utilization identified above were not
 perceived as  a contimuum,  and the  profligate use  of natural  resources
 was justified in  the  name  of human  progress.

      Of  recent  years  the national  mood  respecting  resources  has changed
 dramatically.   Familiar and  long-accepted evidences of resource abuse--
 soil  erosion,  smoke  and ash  in  the atmosphere,  the degradation  of fresh
 waters through  domestic and  industrial waste—have become objects of
 widespread  and  highly  vocal  criticism.  Scientific advances  have  led to
 new and  strange assaults on  nature—atomic pollution, sonic  booms,
 dangerous concentrations of  mercury in food fish—which have given added
 cause for public  clamor.  Scientific  advances have also led  to  interesting
 and sometimes  curious  modifications in official  (and popular)  comprehension
 of  the defilement of  nature  and  consequently  to drastic turnabouts in
 public policy:  DDT, but recently hailed as the  agent which had  made
 possible the  eradication of  malaria throughout much of the world,  now
 faces a world-wide ban as to poison inimical  to human beings  as well  as to
 mosqui toes.

     "Environment" a short five years  ago had a precise meaning among
 the relatively small number, mostly scientists, who employed the term.
Once a noun  which stood for  a wholly  respectable concept,  it  is now used
adject i vely—envi ronmental pollution,  environmental contaminant,
environmental noise, environmental destruction--to describe practices
and actions  and results regarded as anti-social.  Pollution,  defilement,
destruction:  these are the words currently most frequently applied in
                                  -188-

-------
 discussion of the environment, and the greatest of these is pollution.
 The automobile, operating essentially as it has since the beginning of
 the century, becomes, through growth and concentrati on of both cars
 and people, a prime polluter of the atmosphere; a music festival  finds
 itself  indicated as a multiple polluter; a youngster setting off  a
 firecracker is guilty of noise pollution.  Pollution, like environment,
 is everywhere and very nearly everything.  Considerations of health
 and safety, together with an emerging ethic fired by a revolution in
 public  sensibilities and expectations, demand drastic action.  What
 is required is the elimination of, or at the least a substantial  abate-
 ment  in, pollution over a wide front in the interest of preserving
 (or restoring) a livable environment.

      If the intensity of public concern for the environment is a
 recent  phenomenon, a gradually growing interest in the subject is not;
 for there has been an increasing public awareness of the significance
 of the misuse of natural resources for society for more than half a
 century.  To emphasize this graving pub]i c concern is not necessarily
 to denigrate private action toward the suppression of pollution.
 Many private enterprises have indeed made significant efforts toward
 upgrading the environment (or that part of it with which they have
 been primarily concerned), or at least to avoid its  further downgrading.
 Major efforts nevertheless have been public—that is to say governmental--
 in character.  The time appears to have arrived when there is something
 approaching a consensus calling for vigorous governmental action  looking
 toward  the preservation of the nation's remaining resources, their
 restoration to full health where that proves practicable, and their
wise use (to the extent possible)  in the future.  In short, the time
 for more positive action by government appears to be at hand.  That at
 any rate is the bias of the writer, and that is the  premise which under-
 lies the remainder of this essay.

     The current emphasis on the urgency of the problem of environmental
 pollution/destruction, on the national emergency precipitated by  recent
 developments, and on the urgent need for immediate and drastic action
 if the environment is to be preserved in a form compatible with human
 life--in short, the growing sense  of national  crisis, tends to obscure
 the fact that the country has been concerned with the use and abuse:
of natural  resources, and so with  "the environment", for a great  many
years.  During the first hundred years of the last century, and more
audibly during the first years of this century, the voice of the  conser-
 vationists  began to be heard:  let us use our resources more wisely, let
us consume  them with greater restraint, let us eliminate waste to the
extent practicable, let us preserve the bounties of nature for future
generations.   A second major shift in the public's attitude calls for
positive action looking toward the management of natural resources.
With each passing decade the role  of government has  become greater:
 individual  and corporate role of government has become greater: individual
and corporate license to exploit the resources has receded gradually
before a mounting sense of public  proprietorship, and more and more
 laws have come into being to govern the use (ind suppress the misuse) of
 resources,  more and more administrative agencies have been established
                                 -189-

-------
 to represent the public concern for more  rational  resource management.
 It may be granted that government has  (governments have) acted  in a
 haphazard, unplanned,  often illogical  manner  in  its efforts  (usually
 ad hoc)to deal  with  the problems  it has perceived, and  that  the net
 result is a far-from-effective instrument or  plan  for the public
 management of natural  resources.   That, however,  is another  story,
 one which, however important,  is  not relevant  to the central  theme
 of this  essay.

      The methods of  government in natural  resources administration
 run the  gamut from service  to  private  enterprises  (to which  almost
 no one objects)  through education,  research,  advice and  information,
 standards of performance (with or without  attendant inspections)
 regulation, taxation (to produce  revenue,  to  provide incentive, to
 regulate), financing private development,  contract ing with private
 enterprisers for the performance  of selected  services, negotiating
 agreement among interested  (and frequently  contending) parties,
 public-private  partnership,  technical  assistance (to both private
 and public agencies),  inter-governmental  fiscal transfers to,
 ultimately, direct administration through  public ownership and
 operation (to which  many object).   Even casual scanning  of this
 listing  will  reveal  that the activities of government respecting
 resources administration rnage from those  generally accepted  to those
 frequently attacked  as  "socialism".   It will saggest too, that govern-
 mental activities  cover a very wide spectrum,  that virtually  all
 governments are  involved (some, granted,  in a quite limited way)
 in  resources  administration  is  an  exceedingly  varied anc complex under-
 taking.

     Contemplation of  the major aspects of public  resources management
 immediately,  and of  course qui te p-operly, raises the question, what
 governments  are, and what governments  should be, involved in  the pro-
 cess?  Resource  management activities  vary from boring a village well
 (and ascertaining  that  the water  it produces is potable)   to research on
 the methods  and  effects  of disposing of atomic wastes.    It is clear
 that governments of  various kinds  and  at all levels not only  are but
 inevitably  must  be involved in  activities  of so wide and varied a character.
 It  is equally clear  that  such involvement must be selective.   The central
 problem  is  to determine which  government  (more accurately, in general
 terms, which  level of government)  is best  suited in such terms as vantage
 point, fiscal strength,  technical competence, and leadership  potential,
 to undertake  responsibility for agven--and carefully del ineated--part
of the action.  Appraising the  contributions which each  of the various kinds
 and levels of government  is prepared to make to the total task of
natural  resources management is a task far beyond the scope of competence
of this essay.   It may, however, be possible to survey  one kind of govern-
ment with emphasis on its strengths and weaknesses  as  a  role player in the
emerging assault on environmental pollution and polluters.   The remainder
of this paper will be devoted  to an appraisal  of local  government as a
participant in the war on pollution.
                                     -190-

-------
 2.  Local Government: An Overview

     Americans glorify  local government.  In its origins, local govern-
 ment was  local indeed:  it was small and folksy, it was close to home,
 its few employees were  friends and neighbors, it was highly visible,
 it  rendered minimal services which nearly everybody considered
 necessary.  It savored  of the grass roots.   It was, moreover, indigenous,
 in  that it was locally  established in response to locally felt needs.
 By  the same token Americans distrust bigness in government, whether defined
 in  terms of geographic  size, number of employees, size of budget, or
 number and variety of functions performed.  By tradition, our sympathies
 and our (nominal) loyalties lie with the rudimentary governments of a
 by-gone day. '

     Given this predilection, it might logically be expected that
wide responsibilities would be placed on local  government in the in-
 tensified attack on pollution which appears to be taking shape.  Some
 proposals looking in that direction have indeed been made already.
 But before placing great faith in local  institutions as effective com-
batants in the emerging wary, it would be well  to appraise the capabilities
of  local institutions in respect of the  heavy new demands that could be
made upon them.  Something nore than sentiment will be required if the
obligations of effective pollution control are to be met.  "Keep
government close to the people", "only at the local level can true
democracy prevail", "those who enjoy the benefits of pure water (as
an example) should pay  for them"--as political  weapons these slogans
have their values; but  their symbolism would appear to have little connection
with the operational  effectiveness of local  institutions.

     What kinds of governments does the  term "local government" embrace?
The most recent Census  of Governments  reports that, in 1967, the United
States had 81,299 units of givernment.  All  but 51 of these (the
government of the United States and those of the 50 states)  were classified
as local governments.   Of these we may rule out townships, which normally
perform only limited functions, and school districts, whose operational
 responsibilities  generally have little to ob with pollution control.  What
are left then are counties (3,049), municipalities (18,048), and special
districts  (21,264) a total of 42, 351  units  of government which have (or
may have)  responsibilities relating to natural  resources.  Many of these
units  would seem to fit the nostalgic pattern of "little government"
described  above:  275 counties have less  than 5,000 people each, over half
the municipalities (54  percent)  have fewer than 1,000, and 60 percent of
the special  districts have no full-time  employees and almost as many have
no debts.   On the other hand, 107 counties have populations of 250,000
or more (all  together have almost 44 percent of the population served by
county governments);  130 municipalities  with more than 100,000 people have
(again) almost 44 percent of the population  served by incorporated places;
and 1148 of the special  districts (over  5 percent of the total) have more
than 20 full-time employees each while 2020  (almost ft percent of the total)
1
 The author has written on this subject in other places.   See especially
 Roscoe C.  Martin, Grass Roots (University, Ala.  The University of Alabama
 Press, 1957).

                                    -191-

-------
                                    2
 have debts of more than $1  million.

      Clearly "local  government"  is a thing  of extremes.  Clearly
 little can be realistically expected  of the mini-governments de-
 scribed here.  More  may legitimately  be expected of  the larger
 and stronger units.   Most of the  larger counties and all of the
 sizeable cities are  involved already  in resources administration
 in one way or another;  while almost half of the special districts
 are directly concerned  with natural resources — soil conservation,
 drainage,  irrigation,  flood control,  water supply, sewage disposal,
 and so on.

      It has  been  suggested  that one of  the prime characteristics of
 local  government  is  its  variety and complexity in kind, nature,
 functions,  and strength.  The municipalities range from villages
 with  few or  no employees or functions to New York, Chicago, and Los
 Angeles, the counties from  small  and  elementary entities to centers
 of metropolitan government,  the special dstricts from paper units
 to the Metropolitan  Water District of Southern California.  The
 extreme diversity  in  size,  responsibilities, and fiscal resources
 among  these  81, 248  units of "local government" requires caution and
 discrimination  in  use of the term.  Some are indeed  local  in the
 traditional  sense  of  the ternr-in the sense, that is, of Lilliputian
 government "close  to  the people"; some,  on the other hand, are great
 and powerful  and extremely  diverse  in functions performed.  These
 are  local only  by  designation.  It  is safe to say that much of what
 is  called  local government  is irrelevant to present-day needs through
 deficiencies  in scale and resources.  Much of it, however, and speci-
 fically  the  larger and stronger governments, is highly relevant.  This
 evaluation applies specifically to the  family or activities and we
 have chosen  to  lable "environmental management".

     Notwithstanding their extreme variety and diversity,  local
 governments  share  certain common characteristics  which are important
 to the  present  discussion.    These may be said to be three  in number.
 First,  all are  legally dependent upon the states, not only for the powers
 they exercise but  indeed for  their very existence.   It is  true that over
 the course of many years the  states have come to be regarded as primary.
The states exercise legal powers of life and death  over their local
 governments, with political   considerations the principal  guarantors of local
hegemony.  This means among other things that  local  units,  whatever their
size and scope and strength, are governments of limited powers; it
means too that the geographic area over which  they have jurisdiction is
carefully circumscribed by   lav/.
2
  United States Bureau of the Census, Census of Governments, 1967,  Vol.  1
  Governmental  Organization (Washington:  U.S.  Government Printing Office,
  1968).  The  data on which the above summary rests are to be found in
  pp.  1-5 of this report.
                                     -192-

-------
 It  is difficult to over-emphasize these points in assaying the role
 of  local governments  in protecting and restoring the environment.

     Second among the characteristics held in common by bcal govern-
 ments is their traditional role as supplier of services.  Before
 there were states there were communities operating schools, building
 roads, and keeping the peace.  Local governments still fulfill this
 historical need, though of course in widely varying degree.  Equally
 to  the point, they are expected by the people to act as purveyors of
 services.  Here the myth lingers on even where the substance has
 largely evaporated.  Even so the myth remains strong, and local
 governments are committed to its perpetuation.  That the expectations
 are frequently frustrated ingnoddy performance is part of the price
 paid for our excessive loyalty to government at the grass roots.

     That price is further increased by the jealousy of their rights
 and prerogatives held by local governments: that is to say, by local
 officials.  Communities of all shapes and sizes insist on their ability
 to  deal effectively with whatever problem may present itself.  No matter
 the nature or complexity or point of origin or pervasiveness of impact:
 pollution of water, air, and soil is clasped to the bosom of the community
 as  a local problem.  Offers of "outside" help are viewed with suspicion,
 non-indigenous individuals and institutions as intruders.  This  sense
 of  self-contained competence leads to the practice of exclusivity: to
 residence requirements for candidates for local office, to the doctrine
 (and widespread practice) of "hometown boys for home-town jobs", to note
 two common examples.

     The doctrine of local self-sufficiency, together with its consequent
 introspectiveness in the practice of administration, results in  a certain
 churlishness on the part of one local unit toward another, or, indeed toward
 all others.   If a government regards itself as able to serve local needs
 and solve local prob 1 ems 1hrough employment solely of its own resources,
what is the need to seek the assistance or even the cooperation  of
 other governments similarly placed?  Considering that neighboring govern-
 ments entertain identical views of their own positions, rights,  and
 strengths, what indeed is the promisfe of interlocal mutual assistance or
 cooperation?  Herein lies one of the most serious obstacles to the attack
 on public problems through pooling of local strengths.  We shall have cause
 to  return to it presently.

     It will prove useful at this time to examine the question of local
 governmental adequacy in the face of the mounting complexities of public
 problems.  A government is called into being, and it exists, for the
 sole purpose of serving human wants and needs that would not otherwise
be met.   It  is a truism that local  governments are increasingly helpless
 to cope with the problems of modern technical society; some observers
argue,  indeed, that local government as presently constituted is largely
 irrelevant to the emergint proglems of congestion, crime, poverty, and
pollution.   We need not go so far to agree that local governments do not
hold high promise as potential  contributors to the coming war against
polluters and pollutants of the environment.  Examination of a few criteria
of local  governmental  adequacy (or relevance) will enlighted the argument.
                                   -193-

-------
      First is the criterion on areal  adequacy.   A  given  unit  of
 local government was establ ished to discharge  one  kind of  re-
 sponsibi 1 ity, but later finds (or may find)  itself confronted by
 quite a different kind.  Geographic area and function, once  reasonably
 congruent (though never perfectly so)  may now  find a  serious want
 of congruity in important areas.   Smog drifts  and  water  flows, and
 the contamination of either air or water may be  offensive  (even
 dangerous) to neighboring communities  of recent  growth.  How  render
 a local unit adequate,  in terms of simple geographic  reach, to the
 new responsibilities of environmental  management?   The way  is long
 and tortuous, but a shorthand answer  may be  offered:  no  very effective
 way has been found.

      Second,  local  governments enjoy  only such powers as are granted
 them by the  states,  as  noted  above-   The powers  of a  particular unit
 may or may not  be sufficient  to permit  it to  cope with the emerging
 problems  of  pollution abatement and control.  The  chance is good that
 they will  not be adequate,  for the states  generally have been
 niggardly  in  the powers  they  have bestowed upon  local governments.
 And the simple  grant of bgal  powers  is  only part  of the story of state-
 local  relations;  there  are  many state-imposed  limits  and regulations which
 affect  local  capabilities  (Sometimes  for the better,  often for the worse)
 to  meet new  and  different  requirements.

      Third,  a local  unit  develops  its own operating style over a period
 of  years.  It establishes  its  own  routines,  its  own precedents, its own
 sense of a proper and fitting  course of action.  The  setting of rules
 and of  agreed limits of action is  of course  necessary to orderly
 operation, but  it may also  inhibit adaptation to new  and unanticipated-
 problems.  It develops  therefore  that a local government's customary
 manner  of operation  is  a  limiting  factor in  its  consideration of ways
 to  approach new  and  complex problems.   A government which has found no
 need  to seek  outside assistance and which has had  no experience of
 intergovernmental cooperation  is  not  likely  to view wi th aithusiams the
 prospect of  inter-local action.

      Fourth,  a local unit may  or may not have the  resources to deal
 effectively with a new service  demand.   Such resources may be, first,
 financial   in  nature.  Many  local governments probably are poverty-
 striken; they neither have  nor  claim to have, nor  indeed do they seek,
 fiscal  resources of consequence.  Those which do—the larger and stronger
 governments—are without exception in financial  straits; many indeed claim
 that they are facing bankruptcy, though  it is not  recorded that any of
 the major cities or counties have actually "gone broke".   Here may be noted
 the single important exception  to the above-noted  rule of local  intro-
spection:  local  governments gladly swallow their pride—it proves  not too
 large a lump--to accept financial assistance from any and every "outside"
source, and particularly from  the state  and the  federal  governments.
Even so local governments in general, even the larger and more prosperous
ones, face an uncertain financial future.  It is  difficult to see  how any
 local unit, or even any prospective consortium of  local  units, could
                                   -194-

-------
command sufficient financial resources to mount a general  attack on
contamination of the environment.

     Aside from money, a local  unit's resources may be appraised
for their technical strength.  Here local government would seem to
be in sounder condition, in that many local units have well-trained
technicians.  The strengths may be more illusory than real, however,
for the science of environmental management requires insights  and
skills which may be quite beyond the grasp of the traditional  chemist
or engineer.  It may be, indeed, that long experience as an engineer
in city or county government will turn out to be a positive dis-
qualification for public service 'n the new environment-conscious
society.

     Next, the political viability of local governments, and of
individual local governments, is a leg!timate criterion for mention
here.  By this is meant such considerations as demonstrated ability
to serve the public, the capacity for identifying and dealing with
new and strange problems, and skill in relations with other govern-
metns — local, state, and federal.  A Government which has  earned a repu-
tation for plodding administrati on rf half-measures in normal times
is not likely to be, a felt to be, an effective participant in the
developi'ng-war on pollution.

     Finally, inseparable from the criteria examined to this point is
the element of leadership.   Leadership in this context may be said to
embrace the abilities to discern future developments, to appraise
their probable impact on government, to identify alternative courses
of action as responses to the emerging demands, to energize the organi-
zation available and to devise a new structure as necessary, to lay out
a course (or courses) of action from the alternatives identified, to
enlist support whereever it can be found (including of course, support
by other governments, particularly state and federal governments), and
to rally public support to the end that government action  may become
community action as well.  The old-time political leader served many
useful purposes (as we-1 as some destructive ones) in his  day.  The call
now is for leadership which will combine the synthesizing  skills of the
politician, the prescience of the prophet, and the tact of the diplomat.
It is obvious both that local government has produced few  such leaders
in the past and that very few are engaged in practice now.  The description
nevertheless depicts the ideal.  To the degree to which local  leaders
are able to combine these several elements of ideal leadership, local
governments' may hope to play meaningful roles in  improving and restoring
the envi ronment.

3.  A Role for Local Government?

     Let us turn now to examination of the possible significance of these
ruminations for local government participation in environmental management.
If resources administration on the one hand and  local government on the
other are as varied, uneven, and complex as we have found  them to be,
then the problems to be encountered in marrying  the two in a way to bring
                                   -195-

-------
 about operational  effectiveness  and programmatic  achievement may be
 expected to be complicated indeed.   Not  that  local  governments and
 natural  resources  are strangers.   On the  one  hand local  units are
 themselves among the most wanton  polluters, both  through  direct
 contribution of pollutants and  through toleration of pollution by
 industry;  while on the other hand such governments, particularly
 municipalities and special districts, have  participated  positively
 in resources administration over  a  great  many years.  There are, for all
 that, both new problems  and emerging public expectations  which justify
 question of local  government's  capacity  to  contribute materially
 to the new style of environmental  management which will  be required
 to meet  the perceived crisis.

      It  has been noted that the energies  of a 11 governments at all
 levels must be engaged in reasonably coordinated  action  if the
 nation is  to deal  with environmental  deterioration with  anything
 approaching success.   To lay out  the issues and examine  the problems
 involved in any such  total  effort  is  beyond the pretensions of this
 essay.   Let us instead select a modest segment of the whole problem--
 one nevertheless of fundamental  importance--which has direct and
 primary  consequences  for local gpvernment.  The particular problem
 chosen concerns  the long-continued  but mounting pollution of a small
 intrastate river which,  draining  an  area  of approximately 900 square
 miles,  flows  through  three counties,  a city of 100,000 a  city of
 50,000,  and a  city  of 10,000 on  its  way to join the waters of a larger
 stream.  The basin  also  has  10 villages of 500 to 2,000  located on
 the main stream and on  tributaries.  The  cities and several of the
 villages have  used  the stream for both water supply and sewage disposal
 for many years.  As many as  half-a-dozen  industries, most of them small
 but nevertheless potent  in  local  affairs, use the stream  for waste
 disposal.   Vested  interests  and uses  are  therefore strong.  The time
 has  come when  they  are also in conflict.  There is a growing feeling that
 "something has  to be  done".

     The problem is to cleanse the stream, first  through  control
 of  polluters,  second  through abatement of existing pollution.3  The local
 governments of  the  area  are  looked to fer the necessary action.   Even
 casual contemplation  of  the  problem will  suggest  the nature of the
 action required  for its  solution--or, better,  its melioration,  since,
 given  the  number and  nature of the parties involved and the longstanding
 uses they  have become accustomed to rake of the stream,  a once-and-for-
 all solution is  scarcely  attainable.  Action must be basinwide if it is to
be effective:  it must take  into account,  as nearly as  possible,  the needs
of all the people  in  the  drainage area.   The bulk of these needs,  though
certainly  not all,  may be expected to be represented by the various organi-
zations  of the valley.  As  identified above, these include three  counties,
three cities, and 10  villages on the public side.   The  six industries
a.lso represent needs, and perhaps more to the  point vested interests, which
must be  taken  into account.  The discussion here,  however, centers  on
possible action by  the 16  local  governments of the basin.  The  assumption
 is that  local public action  is paramount, though  in the end it  may  prove
not suffi cient.
 Other potential  interests in managing the river--for control  of floods,
 irrigation, hydroelectric power, recreation,  and so on — are deliberately
 ignored in favor of emphasis on the single issue of pollution control.

                                    -196-

-------
     The cardinal point to be emphasized is that no existing local
 government wi1] prove adequate to the task of controlling and abatine
 pollution  in  the stream.  Nor, indeed, can any single local government
 now  in being  be made adequate to that need, given the law and
 practice of American local government.  Local units have been granted
 limited extraterritorial jurisdiction--that is, have had their legal
 limits expanded to deal with a speficied problem—by state authorization
 here and there; but nowhere, so far as is known, has such a government
 been granted  the extended jurisdiction that would be required for
 effective  action over such an area as that described above.  If the 16
 local governments are to play a significant role, therefore, they must
 seek the capability for such action through agreement among themselves.
 In its simplest form this v/ould entail appropriate action by other units,
 to clean up the river: that  is, primarily, to reduce its own contribution
 to seek to persuade (or to force) local industry to suspend or abate
 its pollution  activities.  Something undoubtedly could be accomplished
 through this  most elementary of common action by local  units, but it is
 highly unlikely that such piecemeal action would achieve really signi-
 ficant results.

     Advancing a step, the local  units might pursue corrective action
 by more formal intergovernmental  agreement.  As a minimum, this might
 take the form  of agreement among the several governments to take parallel
 action looking to pollution  control.  Such inter-governmental agreement
 might find expression in establishment of a basinwide council of
 governments.  The council device, which has become increasingly popular
 during the last few years, offers local governments an organism through
which they may cooperate on  a voluntary basis without surrender of their
 traditional autonomy.  It must be stressed that a council of governments
 is not itself  a government,  that it has no authority or power other than
 that granted  voluntarily by  the participating governments, and that it
 has therefore  little coercive power over its member units.  It has, for
 example, no power to lay taxes, or to issue directives  (or take other
 action)  with  the sanctional  force of law behind them.

     Still, councils of governments in some areas have gained considerable
 influence through exercise of vigorous leadership over extended periods,
 and the council movement undoubtedly has gained in vitality in the last
 few years.  This is true partly because they have been given encouragement
by some states and by the federal government; the latter has, indeed,
 designated the council of governments as one kind of local agency qualified
 to receive federal planning  funds.  Even so, it is to be doubted that a
 council  of governments v/ould prove effective in controlling pollution
 throughout a  river basin.  It would seem that the most that could be hoped
would be that such a council would make an areawide plan for pollution
abatement, relying on local  governments (and local industries)  to take
 the necessary steps to implement the plan—and on its ability to persuade
 local leaders to take such action.

     As  an alternative (or a supplement) to the council of governments
device,  action looking toward pollution control might be taken through
                                   -197-

-------
 contracts entered into by two or more concerned governments.   Con-
 ceivably all 16 local  governments might subscirbe  to one  general
 contract through which all  would agree to take certain  common
 specified steps designed to abate pollution in the river.   A  less
 ambitious arrangement, and  one more likely of achievement,  would
 occur if two or three  governments should contract  among themselves  to
 take preventive or remedial action.  A regional  network of  inter-
 governmental contracts might in time grow out  of such individual and
 localized agreements.   It is apparent that such  a  network,  however broad
 its scope,  would be  likely  to take form without  regard  for  a  regional
 plan, or indeed for  regional needs in any large  sense.

      A further step  along the road toward effective  regional action
 might be taken through establishment of an areawide  special district
 for pollution abatement and control.  A special  district  may be
 defined  as  a local government possessed of limited and  carefully
 enumerated  powers.   (Special districts  in some states and for  some
 purposes are sometimes called "authorities".)   It  may have  powers
 to undertake several activities,  or it  may be restricted  to
 discharge of one function;  most special  districts  are single-purpose
 in nature.   There  are  more  than 21,000  special  districts  in the United
 States,  as  noted above,  and these include units  which deal  with such
 environment-related  matters as  soil  conservation,  drainage, irrigation
 water conservation,  flood control,  water supply, and sewage disposal.
 Such  districts,  which  represent the most effective means yet devised
 for squaring governmental jurisdiction  with felt programmatic  need,
 enjoy wide  and  growing popularity,  as  is  evidenced by their rapid
 increase in  number over the last  quarter century.  Why  not  a special
 district for pollution control  with  boundaries  coincident with the
 affected area—in  this  case, a  (small)  river  basin?

      Creation  of a special  district  would signify  the intention to
 deal  with our  areawide pollution  problem through regional  action.
 Special  districts must be authorized by  state  law, either a general
 act  conveying authority  toestablish  such  districts in certain
 circumstances or a special  act  covering  a particular case.  In either
 event  local  initiative  is normally  required,  to  implement action in the
 first  instance,  to procure  passage  of a  special  law  and then implement
 action under  it  in the  second.

      Failing positive  local  action  in the  face of  recognized
 emergency conditions,  the state may  itself  initiate  action  to establish
 a  special district--or,  indeed, another organizational  form: a regional
 planning board,  for example,  to "jawbone"  government to clean up the
 pollution.  Such action by  the  state  removes  the issue  from our area
 of concern,  which is  limited  to mnsideration of the  moves  available to
 local governments themselves.

     Contemplation of possible  local alternative actions teturns us to
 consideration of the  criteria of  local government adequacy examined
 above.   It is clear at  once  that  no  local unit possesses the geographic
 reach to cope with the  problem of basinwide water pollution.  To employ
 the verbiage introduced earlier,  area and  function are not congruent, hence
no government passes  the test of  areal adequacy.  Nor does any local
unit possess the legal  powers required for regional pollution  control,
nor has any  had  regional experience  in planning and executing  a regional
                                    -198-

-------
program.  The data introduced h laying out the problem do not warrant
comment on local fiscal resources, though in view of the financial
stringency everywhere felt (or claimed), it is highly doubtful that
the region's public fiscal structure could realistically be expected
to assume the cost of an active pollution control program.^
Technical resources (engineers, chemists, public health people, and
so on) might be expected to be more nearly adequate, though a regional
program for pollution control would require talent and experience not
normally found among local governments.  That the governments of the
valley generally are politically strong goes without saying, for local
communities are everywhere extraordinarily hardy structures.  The
political strength of existing governments would, indeed, pose a major
obstacle to achievement of a politically viable regional organization.
Regional leadership, too, almost certainly will be found to be in
short supply, precisely because of the political strength (which
reflects, among other things, shrewd leadership) of existing local
governments.

     The issue may now be joined forthrightly.  What is required for
solution (or melioration) of the problem is regional action, what is
at hand is fragmented local government—government which, however
successful it may be (or through long familiarity may seem) in meeting
the felt needs of the individual communities, has, and by tradition
has had, little interest in broader concerns.  The local governments
lack the kinds of strengths required for regional action.  They also
lack the leadership to identify extraterritorial (that is, regional)
problems, plan programs for their resolution, rally public support,
and devise arrangements for intergovernmental action—or for a new
regional organization--to launch and execute an effective program of
regional pollution control.

     For their part, the people are not accustomed to thinking in
areawide terms.  The ecological region, be it associated with a drainage
basin or otherwise defined, though a natural region to the environmentalist,
appears utterly artificial to the local populace.  The citizen is familiar
only with that part of the stream which flows past his door, or at the
most with that part in which he is accustomed to fish, boat, and bathe.
He may know when the water supply is not pure, particularly if he can
smell  the impurity, but he is not likely to connect this with anything
 The facts (a) that "outside" funds (federal and sometimes state)  are
 available to supplement local funds for construction of pollution
 control facilities and (b) that operation of such facilities can  be
 financed largely by user charges render the claims of local  poverty
 in this context somewhat less than compelling.  A further modifying
 consideration is a plan recently proposed whereby polluters  would be
 forced to pay for the privilege of discharging pollutants into a  stream.
 (The principal purpose of this charge would be regulation of polluters
 and control  of pollution.)   It can be persuasively argued that the com-
 modity in short supply actually is vision and imagination, and of course
 will, rather than money.
                                 -199-

-------
 that happens upstream.   As  for pollution  downstream, his  community
 has always disposed of its  wastes  by  dumping  them  in the  river; what
 has happened to necessitate any change  in that  time-honored  practice?
 It may be said that the people of  New York know that the  Hudson River
 is polluted, and the people of Trenton  the Delaware; but  jdp_  they  in
 fact know this?  And if they do, are  they willing  to support their
 local  governments in the action programs  necessary  to bring  the popu-
 lation under control?^   But the argument  wanders from  its proper  course,
 for our problem area is a small watershed with  a limited  population,
 where  conditions have not yet  deteriorated to a point comparable with
 those  characterizing the Hudson or the  Delaware.

     The problem of regional  leadership,  or the absence thereof,  is
 worthy of further comment.   Such leadership,  if it  is to  result in
 positive governmental  action,  must be of  a political nature.  All the
 lecturing done by professors  and all  the  editorializing by newspapers
 which  profess  a valleywide  vision  will  avail  little except in terms
 of background  education.  What  is  required  and  what must  be had for
 regional  action is  regional  political leadership, and this is one
 of the rarest  of all  commodities.   As the  author has observed elsewhere,
 there  is  no  regional  courthouse or city hall, no regional high school
 with its  regional  footba-1  team and its regional  drum majorettes to stir
 regional  hearts,  no valleywide  fair.  There may be  institutions having
 social  and economic impact  over a  wide  area, but they are not paralleled
 by effective political  organizations  of equally wide scope.  There is,
 then,  no  areawide electorate,  there are no  regional offices to fill,
 there  is  no  basinwide political organization for the aspiring leader to
 ite to.   His concerns are and  normally  must remain  rooted in the  local
 units:  in the  case  of our problem  area, the three counties, three cities,
 and 10  villages  comprising  the  regional fabric  of local government.

     It must be  concluded that  local  government offers little hope
 for effective  action  respecting problems of regional scope.  This
 generalization  applies  specifically and particularly to pollution control
 in  any  stream,  however  small and however  limited its watershed, which
 flows  through  two or more local jurisdictions.  These are contributions
which  local governments  can make toward the preservation and restoration
of  the environment, but  their number  and significance are comparatively
 limited.  Those who seek action to bring the environment under effective
management would do well to  look elsewhere than to  local  government.   The
states  must take the initiative, in full partnership with the federal
government,  if anything of major significance is to happen.

     Given positive interest and concern on the part of the state, it may
be possible to bring about  regional action despite  local  indifference,
and even hostility.  We have noted that the state is the source of all
  Pollution in the Delaware River has been materially reduced in recent
  years, largely through the work of the Delaware River Basin Commission.
  That agency, however, is a state-federal rather than a local  government
  i nst rument.
                                   -200.

-------
local governmental power within its borders, and we have implied
that the state has access to funds not available to the localities.
If the state wishes to take action to establish a regional  agency for
pollution control  (or for any other purpose), there is little the
local governments of the legion can do about it except to lodge their
protests (or voice other opinion)  through the channels of politics.
It may be that the local units would not see fit to protest state
support of regional action, that they might indeed be enticed into
cooperation by tactful moves by the state.  There is always the allure
of the financial carrot, whether dangled by the state or by the
federal government.

     There is the  further consideration that "local action" may be
interpreted to mean action by ci ti zens rather than by the local
governments of the region.  The state has the legal power to
establish a regional  pollution control agency and provide for its
management by a board composed of residents of the region,  appointed,
let us say, by the governor.  This, too, would represent local
participation in a program of regional action, though instigated by
the state and though bypassing the local governments.

     The central point of this essay has been that local governments by
almost any criterion are poorly equipped to initiate action or to
participate meaningfully in a regional attack on environmental pollution.
To return to an earlier theme, action (certainly initial action) by
the state is a sine qua non to effective movement toward a regional
approach to environmental management.
                                   -201-

-------
1

5
Accession Number
2

Organization
Department of Civil
Subject Field & Group
06B,C,E
SELECTED WATER RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
Engineering

        Syracuse University
        Syracuse,  New lork  13210
     Title
       BMEFITS OF WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT
10

Authors)
Nemerow, Nelson E.
16

21
Project Designation
16110 DAJ 12/70
Note
 22
     Citation
       Environmental Protection Agency
       Washington,  D.  C.
     Descriptors (Starred First)
       Benefits*,Economics*,Governments-Water Policy*,Regions*
 25
Identifiers (Starred First)

     Pollution Index*,Net Benefits*,River Basin Authority*
 27
    Abs
   Tliis research was carried out over a three year period  ending September 1,
   1970.  During the first two years two related  subject areas  were studied,
   The Development of a Pollution Index for Benefit Analysis  and Measurements
   of the Total Dollar Benefit of Water Pollution Control.  During the final
   year the Benefits of Water Quality Enhancement were  studied  further in order
   to implement pollution abatement at a local  level  of government.  These
   three separate but related aspects of the overall  project  are included
   in this Final Report and Described as Part A,  B and  C.
        Part A contains a discussion of the past  practices and  recent trends
   in water pollution control as it relates to  water  quality.
        Part B  describes the dollar benefit of a lake  or  stream at a given
   water quality is determined by listing all uses which both affect and are
   affected by water quality, by valuing each use individually, and by summing
   the resultant values.
        In Part C a study was undertaken of a methodology  for water pollution
   abatement administration at the local or regional  level, using Onondaga
   Lake, N. T. as an example.
'4bs(racrorNemerow,  Nelson E.
                              Institution
                              Syracuse, University
 WR:102 (REV. JULY 19691
 WRS1C
                                          SEND TO: WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
                                                 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
                                                 WASHINGTON. D. C. 20240
                                                                               * CPO: 1969-359-339

-------