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
------- |