EPA-600/5-73-008b
October 1973
Socioeconomic Environmental Studies Series
Research Needs and Priorities :
Water Pollution Control Benefits
and Costs - Vol. II
PRO
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and
Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency, have
been grouped into five series. These five broad
categories were established to facilitate further
development and application of environmental
technology. Elimination of traditional grouping
was consciously planned to foster technology
transfer and a maximum interface in related
fields. The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Mcnitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the SOCIOECONOMIC
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES series. This series
describes research on the socioeconomic impact of
environmental problems. This covers recycling and
other recovery operations with emphasis on
monetary incentives. The non-scientific realms of
legal systems, cultural values, and business
systems are also involved. Because of their
interdisciplinary scope, system evaluations and
environmental management reports are included in
this series.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Research and
Development, EPA, and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency,
nor does mention of trade names or commercial products consti-
tute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
£.fA-600/5-73-008b
October 1973
RESEARCH NEEDS AND PRIORITIES!
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
BENEFITS AND COSTS
VOLUME II
by
David L. Jordening
James K. Allwood
Contract No. 68-01-0744
Project 21-AQJ-05
Program Element 1HA094
Project Officer:
Fred H. Abel
Economic Analysis Branch
Implementation Research Division
Washington, D.C. 20460
Prepared for
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND MONITORING
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
ABSTRACT
This report includes foremost a specification; of research needs
and priorities involving water pollution control costs and benefits. A
series of theoretical and methodological research needs are presented.
Water quality management is required in a dynamic setting and over a
broad range of hydrologic and economic conditions. The common
property resource aspects of the problem with the prevalence of exter-
nalities complicates the issues involved. These and other factors em-
bedded in the research needs are discussed.
A major development of a cost-minimization methodological
approach for water quality management is also presented. Within this
framework the indicated research needs are more readily identified
and explained.
An important distinction is made between the economic costs of
pollution and the costs of pollution abatement. The economic costs of
pollution such as damages, efficiency reductions, increased production
expenses, process changes and opportunity costs are a function of
water quality, whereas pollution abatement costs are typically a func-
tion of the degree of pollution control. For comparable cost compari-
sons, a transformation of pollution abatement costs in terms of water
quality is desired. This transformation need and problem is discussed
in detail.
Finally, in a series of technical appendicies, the following
subjects are discussed:
(1) water pollution control cost and benefit estimates,
(2) water quality associated health impacts,
(3) specific pollutant sources, damages and potential
treatment methods, and
(4) critical levels and damage threshholds for selected pollutants.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Project Number
21-AQJ-05, Contract Number 68-01-0744 by Development Planning and
Research Associates, Inc. , Manhattan, Kansas, under the sponsorship
of the Environmental Protection Agency. Work was completed as of
May, 1973.
11
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract ii
Exhibits iv
Acknowledgments vi
Executive Summary vii
Sections
I Background Perspectives and Research Needs 1
II A General Methodological Approach 30
III Economic Cost of Pollution 63
IV Cost of Pollution Abatement 78
V Estimating Water Quality as a Function of Pollution
Control 83
VI Conclusions and Direction of Future Work 119
VII Appendices 125
111
-------
EXHIBITS
No. Page
II-1 Benefits of pollution abatement measures in the
Ohio River Valley in the various uses of the surface
water 37
II-2 Annual costs and benefits of water pollution abate-
ment measures 38
II-3 Effect of degree of removal of dissolved organic mat-
ter from effluents on annual costs and economic bene-
fits due to pollution abatement in the Maumee River
Basin 40
II-4 Treatment processes that can be costed by the waste-
water treatment plant cost estimating program 44
II-5 Cost of treatment and degree of control (by treatment
strategy) 45
II-6 Water quality and percent treatment 48
II-7 Economic costs of pollution 50
II-8 Total water quality benefits 52
II-9 Total cost of waste disposal 60
III-l Beneficial use classifications and specific impacts
of water pollution 65
III-2 Economic costs of pollution 68
III-3 Economic cost of pollution in reference to municipal
preuse treatment 72
III-4 Recreation participation variables 74
IV-1 Total capital, operating and maintenance costs re-
quired to meet current standards in 1968 and 1976 81
V-l Effect of degree of removal of dissolved organic
matter from effluents on annual costs and economic
benefits due to pollution abatement in the Maumee
84
River Basin
iv
-------
EXHIBITS (continued
No. Page
V-2 Selected water quality characteristics 87
V-3 Drinking water standards of the U.S. Public Health
Service, 1962 88
V-4 Classification of water quality according to hardness
and salinity properties 90
V-5 Assessment of surface water quality by a single
index of pollution 91
V-6 Battelle's Environmental Evaluation System 92
V-7 Components of the PDI water quality measurement
system 97
V-8 Total assimilative capacity of streams of different
orders 99
V-9 Sources of surface water pollutants 100
V-10 Variations in dissolved solids and sediment concen-
trations in major river basins in arid and semiarid
United States 103
V-ll Water quality characteristics adopted for this study 107
V-12 General form of surface water quality - degree of
control curves 109
V-13 Raw and treated effluent flows, illustrative case 112
V-14 Surface water quality as a function of effluent load,
BOD by quarter of year, illustrative example 115
V-15 BOD content of treated effluent as a function of
degree of treatment, illustrative case 116
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report represents a group effort. Various Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) and Development Planning and
Research Associates, Inc. (DPRA) personnel were involved and
our thanks goes to all who directly participated.
The EPA Economic Analysis Branch staff in general, but
especially Fred Abel, Chief and Dennis Tihansky, project liaison
representative, assisted by providing information and direction to
the study.
Many DPRA staff members and associates contributed to
this report. James Allwood and David Jordening shared respon-
sibility for preparing this report. Donald Wissman and Samuel
Unger provided economic assistance and support. We, as econ-
omists, express our appreciation for support of Larry Erickson
and M. Y. Chow who provided "engineering" inputs. We also
recognize the assistance provided by Jarvin Emerson, Arlo Biere
and Linda Erickson during the early stages of this second phase of
study. The diligence and understanding of Frances Moyer and Eloise
Bourque who provided secretarial support in preparing draft and final
materials is acknowledged. The most helpful assistance of Karen
Huff who "computerized" and key-worded our massive reference
list is duly recognized as is the diligence of Mike Woolverton and
others who assisted in reviewing the literature.
Finally, we wish to thank those authors who have shared their
thoughts, findings and hypotheses with us through the printed media.
Without their contributions, this undertaking would have been im-
possible.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The principal objectivei of this report is to specify research
needs and priorities involving water pollution control costs and
benefits. In addition, a major extension toward development of
a cost-minimization methodological approach for water quality
management is presented.
Research needs and priorities are based both on a state-of-
the-art review and a critical evaluation of methodologies and ap-
proaches to water quality management which have been used. Further,
the research needs and priorities can be formulated only when an
adequate analytical framework and general technique has been
selected. Such a framework, limited to partial equilibrium analysis
techniques, is presented in Section II.
In summary, this report is divided into six sections.
I. Background Perspectives and Research Needs
II. A General Methodological Approach
III. Economic Cost of Pollution
IV. Cost of Pollution Abatement
V. Estimating Water Quality as a Function of Pollution
Control
\
VI. Conclusions and Directions of Future Work
Section I reviews the state-of-art findings (Part I) plus addi-
tional partial equilibrium approaches. A critical evaluation of existing
work is made and research needs and priorities are stated. Section II
presents and recommends a partial equilibrium technique for future
use. Sections III, IV and V are needed extensions arising from the
methodological approach adopted in Section II. The final section pre-
sents general conclusions and outlines some specific areas of study
which are proposed for further consideration by EPA. In addition,
a series of appendices are included and referenced in the report.
I. Background Perspectives and Research Needs
There is evidence of considerable lack of direction and co-
ordination in water quality management literature. In most cases it
can be said that water quality management literature is at the infancy
stage. There is also the failure on the part of many to recognize the
common property resource aspects of water quality management
VII
-------
which is the primary source of environmental quality problems. This
inevitably leads to a symptomatic approach to the problem rather than
a direct confrontation of the major factors involved in the water qual-
ity management problem.
Many of the partial equilibrium studies are either high
project-problem-crisis oriented or consider only a very small
portion of the total first round or primary impacts of water qual-
ity deterioration.
The approaches to the water quality management problem
can be segmented into two broad categories based on the level at
which they address the problem, i.e. , general equilibrium as
opposed to partial equilibrium analysis/
There is considerable controversy in the literature covering
the proper theoretical approach to be utilized in assessing water
quality associated impacts. Both the general equilibrium and partial
equilibrium approaches have their own respective strengths and limi-
tations. The quest for immediate answers and the many uncertainties
associated with water quality management necessitates adopting a
readily accessible pragmatic approach to the problem. In this regard
partial equilibrium methods must be selected, duly recognizing the
inherent limitations.
Methodological and Theoretical Research Needs
A series of general methodological and theoretical research
needs are presented. Water quality management is required in a
dynamic setting and over a broad range of hydrologic and economic
conditions. The common property resource aspects of the problem
with the prevalence of externalities complicates the issues involved.
These and other factors are embedded in the general research needs.
Some general methodological and theoretical research needs
(not listed in order of priority) include:
1. Development of methods and procedures to identify
and quantify water associated benefit and cost functions
relating specific benefits and costs to specific pollutants.
Vlll
-------
2. Development of economic and hydrologic models to
identify and quantify complex intra- and interbasin
relationships.
3. Extension and refinement of accounting measures,
such as "insurance values," for uncertain water
quality associated costs and benefits.
4. Formulation of a measure of value that can be used as
a common denominator additive measure to effectively
evaluate all intangible and indirect nonmonetary costs
and benefits associated with changes in water quality.
5. Development of alternative pollution abatement policies
designed to minimize undesirable equity and distribu-
tion impacts associated with water quality control.
6. Quantification of complex water quality substitution
effects. As water quality deteriorates, certain substi-
tution effects may be expected.
7. Development of an aggregation framework to assess
regional and national pollution control costs and benefits.
8. Assessment of alternative political, legal and institu-
tional arrangements needed to perform water pollution
control management functions.
9. Development of procedures to project and evaluate
alternative distributions of benefits and costs through
time, i.e., "time profiles," including the use of a social
discount rate to compute present value.
10. Estimation of net social benefits attributable to water
pollution control measures, i.e., measurement of a
social welfare function. Water pollution control
measures are expected to impact economic structures
with consequent relative shifts in supply and demand
relationships. Such consequences call for analysis of
the social welfare function.
IX
-------
The above list includes a variety of methodological and
theoretical research needs, some of which suggest that a substantial
reassessment of commonly held social objectives is in order.
Data Input Needs
The solution of water quality management problems cannot
be satisfactorily pursued until a comprehensive understanding of
natural and physical relationships has been achieved and quantified.
The absence of such data input at the present time limits the ac-
curacy of comprehensive national benefit and cost function that may
be developed.
Some of the physical,, chemical, biologica;!, economic and
engineering data input needs include, but are not limited to, the
following items:
1. Relationships between waste treatment cost and effluent
water quality for each pollutant and for each type of in-
dustrial and municipal wastes.
2. The quantity of each pollutant from non-point sources
which enters each receptor.
3. The extent of assimilation of each pollutant by natural
processes in each receptor.
4. The effect of each pollutant on municipal and industrial
water treatment processing costs where surface waters
are used for municipal and industrial water supplies.
5. The effects of untreated pollutants on industrial and
domestic activities.
6. The effect of each pollutant on fish and wildlife support
capabilities.
7. The relationships between recreational usage and
water quality, i.e., contact and noncontact water
based recreational demand and water quality.
-------
8. Effects of each pollutant on the useful life of each
reservoir and lake.
9. Effects of each pollutant on health.
10. Effects of each pollutant on final receptors such as
Lake Erie, Gulf of Mexico and oceans.
11. Establishment of regional functions relating degree
of treatment and resulting water quality.
Specific Priorities
The state of the arts review has uncovered many specific
areas and tasks that need to be substantially extended if an^equi-
table solution to the water quality management problem is to be
achieved. The most critical of the needs and priorities are
summarized below. A more comprehensive listing is included in
Section I of the text.
1. Development and implementation of appropriate method-
ology and procedures capable of providing direction and
guidance in an area that has typically been problem -
project-crisis oriented. This may well be accomplished
by extending and refining the priority listings and bene-
fit matrices presented in Appendix A.
2. Further development of appropriate water quality associ-
ated methodologies including items such as substitution
effects, relationships between treatment and resulting
water quality, aggregation procedures and inter-basin
relationships.
3. Further development, extension and application of pro-
cedures capable of assessing ecological, esthetic and
recreation associated water quality impacts.
XI
-------
II* A Methodological Approach
Preliminary examination indicates that health, production
and municipal uses cannot be considered to be the source of
large benefits of water quality improvement. It appears that the
only way pollution abatement measures can be justified in a bene-
fit cost framework is through the accurate assessment of recre-
ation and esthetic benefits -- which are not possible at the present
time.
With the present inability to accurately measure and assess
intangible and indirect benefits, the question arises of how to best
serve the true social objectives. This can be accomplished more
directly by casting water quality management in an alternative con-
ceptual framework --a cost minimization approach. Costs include
both treatment costs and damage costs, e. g. , damages, efficiency
reductions and opportunity costs.
Since the primary source of the pollution problem stems
from externalities or avoidance of on-site costs, the proper
approach is to consider and minimize all costs (both on-site and
off-site). The off-site (economic costs of pollution) vary inversely
with the level of water quality. In the total absence of control the
economic costs of pollution are at a maximum and at total control
the economic costs are at zero {Exhibit 1). The second component
of total social cost of pollution is the cost of pollution abatement as
shown at the zero level with no controls in place and increasing as
controls are enforced. The social objective can be maximized by
selecting the water quality level which minimizes the total water
disposal cost such as point A in the Exhibit.
III. Economic Cost of Pollution
The economic cost of pollution involves multidimensional
components. Economic costs are dependent on, for example, spe-
cific beneficial water uses, specific pollutants involved and geo-
graphic location. This requires disaggregation of the problem in
order to derive useful economic cost estimates. Further, then,
aggregation schemes are necessary to derive national economic
cost estimates and functions.
XU
-------
Exhibit 1. Total cost of waste disposal.
Total cost
Economic cost of
pollution abatement
Economic cost of pollution
Water Quality Characteristics
Xlll
-------
Four broad areas of beneficial water use are health, pro-
duction, esthetics and ecology. Specific kinds of impact of water
pollution among various beneficial use classifications are pre-
sented. The types of economic cost which may occur are damages,
efficiency reductions, process changes, added expenses and oppor-
tunity costs.
Estimation procedures for estimating economic costs of
pollution are discussed. An example of the cost of municipal
preuse water treatment in relation to alternative levels of water
quality is discussed. From this relationship the economic cost of
pollution (damage) is derived. Other examples of estimation of
economic costs are cited.
IV. Cost of Pollution Abatement
Procedures for establishing regional or national cost of
pollution abatement functions are summarized and limiting factors
noted. Current data and extensions (Appendix A) are then used to
generate national pollution abatement cost estimates for all munici-
pal and industrial secondary water treatment. On an annualized
basis, national pollution abatement cost estimates are $3. 9 billion
for 1968 and $4.6 billion for 1976. These estimates include total
capital, operating and maintenance costs (in 1967 dollars) required
to meet standards for 1968 and 1976, respectively.
V. Estimating Water Quality as a Function of Pollution Control
The economic costs (damages, etc.) of pollution are a function
of water quality whereas pollution abatement costs are typically a
function of degree of pollution control. A transformation of pollution
abatement costs in terms of water quality is desired for comparable
cost comparisons. However, numerous measures of water quality
are available including physical, chemical, biological and esthetic
properties.
Measuring Water Quality
Problems encountered in measuring water quality are out-
lined and different measurement systems are discussed. Given a
xiv
-------
set of water quality measurements, it is still necessary to classify
these measurements to rank the quality of water. Selected classi-
fication systems for water quality are also described.
Determinants of Water Quality
A primary determinant of quality is the quantity and type
pollutants entering a water receptor, but of equal importance is the
inherent waste-assimilative capacity of surface water. Consider-
ation of composite relationships are therefore required.
A variety of sources of surface water pollutants, i.e.,
meterologic, domestic, industrial and agricultural, are discussed,
as are the major quality impacts of each.
Measuring Water Pollution Control Levels
Conventional means of measuring or classifying the degree
of pollution control has created some methodological problems toward
estimation of water quality. Most frequently degree of pollution con-
trol is stated as a percentage or proportion of one or more pollutants
removed from effluent flows. Absolute measures of raw effluent
flows (including concentrations) into surface waters must be made,
however, if water quality estimate's are to be derived.
Aggregation
Measurement of either water quality or degree of pollution
control involves a variety of aggregation problems. Spatial distri-
butions of water, temporal aspects (including seasonal flows within
a year), the nature and variability of wasteflows, and variations in
treatment facility-effectiveness are among the problems encountered
when aggregating water quality and degree of pollution control
measures.
Water quality indexes tend to compound aggregation problems.
A conclusion for this study is that water quality should be measured
via specific pollutant values rather than an index.
xv
-------
Recommended Approach
An approach is recommended for relating degree of pollution
control to water quality within a national water pollution control
assessment framework based upon partial equilibrium and short-
run planning constraints.
The recommended approach is illustrated for a case study
from secondary (plus hypothesized) data. Tranformation curves
and functions are shown.
The transformation functions developed are shown to shift
over time assuming increased economic activity and population
growth. The result is an expected increase in degree of treatment
to maintain the same level of water quality. Because of the higher
cost of improved degrees of treatment (constant technology assumed),
the maintenance of a given level of water quality becomes more diffi-
cult to economically justify over time (constant per capita benefits
also assumed). These latter conditions are readily identifiable
using the degree of control/water quality transormation approach
developed.
VI. Conclusions and Directions of Needed Study
The final chapter first presents a series of general conclusions.
Also presented are selected possible areas of emphasis for .continued
work. Three areas of research recommended for immediate emphasis
are briefly as follows:
1. Development of methodology to assess such problem areas as<
a. Substitution effects
b. Treatment versus quality transformation functions
c. Aggregation schemes.
2. Refinement of pollutant/receptor benefit matrix relation-
ships (as initially developed in Appendix A) to better achieve
priority rankings of areas requiring the greatest attention.
3. Development of procedures and methodologies to identify
and quantify ecological, esthetics and recreational benefit
impacts of water pollution control.
xvi
-------
Appendix A; Appraisal of Cost of Control and Benefit Estimates
A special effort was made to develop specific benefit and
cost estimates and related information as presented in Appendix A.
This appendix concentrates on: (1) municipal and industrial pollu-
tion abatement costs (nonpoint sources were not included), (2) the
relative importance of a series of beneficial water uses, and (3)
the relative importance of various specific pollutants.
Municipal and Industrial Pollution Abatement Costs
Estimates of wasteflows, concentrations and wasteloads
are presented for 1968 under no treatment, prevailing treatment
and current standards treatment assumptions. Even with 100 per-
cent compliance with current standards, substantial quantities of
pollution would be contained in treated effluents.
Abatement capital costs for 1968 flow conditions are estim-
ated as: (1967 constant dollars)
a. prevailing levels -- over $14 billion
b. current standards in 1968 -- nearly $26 billion ,
Estimated 1976 costs for full compliance (in 1967 constant dollars)
are over $30 billion capital replacement value and $4. 5 billion
annual costs (including annual capital cost).
Importance of Beneficial Water Uses
Past studies indicate benefits are distributed as follows
(ignoring health, ecological, intangible esthetics and agricultural
irrigation):
Percent of
Beneficial use total benefits
Municipal preuse treatment 2.6 - 28.9
Domestic use 0 - 31.7
Industrial use 3.5 - 21.6
Navigation 0 - 2.8
Commercial fishing 0. 0
Total production 17.3 - 75.9
Recreation 23.0 - 77.8
Property values 1.2 - 21.8
Total tangible esthetics 24.1 - 82.7
xvii
-------
The above benefit distributions reflect recreation benefits in
total before substitution effects. Adjusting for this factor by assuming
50 percent would be left after substitution and by estimating the rela-
tive magnitudes of the beneficial uses ignored in those studies, DPRA
developed the following subjective estimates of benefit distributions:
Percent of
Beneficial use total benefits
Health 4. 0 - 4.5
Production
Municipal preuse treatment 10.0 - 12.0
Domestic use 12.5 - l4.0
Industrial use 8.5 - 11.5
Irrigation &t animal health 3.0-4.0
Navigation 0.5 - 1.5
Commercial fishing 0. 1
Total 37. 1 - 40.6
Tangible esthetics
Recreation 17.0 - 18.5
Property values 1.5 - 2.0
Total 18.5 - 20.5
Ecological & intangible esthetics 36.9 - 37.9
Expansions of the benefit distributions to national estimates
of total social welfare benefits were not attempted due to state-of-
data limitations and methodological considerations.
In terms of research priorities, we rank the beneficial uses
as follows with the most important first;
1. Ecological and intangible esthetics
2. Recreation
3. Municipal preuse treatment
4. Domestic use
5. Industrial use
6. Health
7. Agricultural irrigation and animal health
8. Property values
9. Navigation
10. Commercial fishing.
XVlll
-------
This ranking is based both on percentage distribution of
benefits and pollutant damage potential considerations. To assist
in this task, a pollutant-beneficial use damage potential matrix
was developed to reflect known and suspected pollutant-use rela-
tionships.
Importance of Specific Pollutants
Based upon a percentage benefit weighted pollutant-beneficial
use damage potential matrix and subjective estimates of national
pollution prevalence and intensity by specific pollutant, research
priorities were subjectively ranked as:
1. Organics -- BOD, COD
2. Nutrients -- nitrogen, phosphates
3. Suspended and dissolved solids
4. Turbidity, pH, temperature
5. Fecal coliforms, oil, toxic substances, floating solids,
color, odor
6. Hardness, taste, radioactivity.
xix
-------
SEC TION I
BACKGROUND PERSPECTIVES AND RESEARCH NEEDS
A. Introduction
This document summarizes developments for the second
part of a three-phased program of study:
Phase I: State-of-Art Review
Phase II: Specification of Research Needs and Priorities
Phase III: Selected Implementation Research
A separate state-of-the-art literature review report (4) was pre-
sented summarizing various methodologies and procedures that
have been developed and utilized in assessing the economics of
water quality management.
The objectives of this segment of the project are to (1)
establish research needs and priorities for estimating benefit and
co st-of-control functions relative to policy needs--independent of
data and methodology contraints, (2) to establish research needs and
priorities for estimating benefit and cost-of-control functions rela-
tive to policy needs--given data and methodology constraints, (3) to
further analyze and evaluate selected studies that have undertaken
the formulation of area water quality associated benefit cost esti-
mates or functions, (4) to further supplement and refine water
quality associated benefit cost methodology, (5) to explore alter-
native procedures that may be more appropriate to the water qual-
ity management problem and (6) to suggest possible areas to be
emphasized in future research.
The above objectives represent a considerable extension
beyond the intended effort. This, however, is an inevitable by-
product of the formulation of research needs and priorities and
the detailed assessment of the relative merits of existing work.
The state-of-the-arts must be followed by a critical evaluation.
-------
Both tasks, i.e. , state-of-the-arts review and a critical evaluation,
are requisite inputs in the development of research needs and the
assignment of research priorities. Further, the research needs
and priorities can be formulated only when an adequate analytical
framework or general technique has been selected, developed or
as in this case, refined.
To successfully accomplish the above objectives, it is
expedient to first outline the primary management problem; and,
second, to evaluate the contributions and relative merits of existing
work beyond the state-of-the-arts presentation. Complementary
research needs and priorities are subsequently formulated.
B. Primary Resource Management Problem
The primary problem or shortcoming of the present system
from which almost all environmental problems emanate is the in-
ability of the market system to efficiently allocate common property
resources (this includes the temporal allocation of resources). This
deficiency is inherently tied to the concept that certain resources
are not owned individually but considered free. Title is acquired
only through capture (fugitive resources).
This notion of free resources implicitly means that the
market system does not and is not capable of placing a value on
these resources. Efficient allocation and utilization of such re-
sources may be difficult in the absence of market prices or private
efficiency incentives. In some cases the present social system
actually encourages inefficient allocation and utilization of resources.
Individuals mining groundwater in areas anticipating pumping re-
strictions based on historical usage, for example, are encouraged
to extract resources beyond the point of positive net marginal value
in an attempt to protect future pumping privileges. Further, a
variety of studies have established that industrial water users are
seldom charged a price for water which is equal to the marginal
cost of providing water or the marginal costs of contaminating the
water. (1)
-------
While these.examples are related to quantity rather than
quality aspects of the problem, both issues are part of the broader
resource allocation question and serve to reinforce the fact that
private incentives governing efficient resource use and allocation
are not provided by the market mechanism or any other outside
source. Some have been tempted to summarize the problem with
one word--externalities. While this is perhaps an overstatement
the inte rnalization of all water quality associated costs and benefits
would eliminate a substantial portion of the problem. It must be
emphasized that externalities are actually the result and not the
source of the problem.
In the absence of efficient market allocations, proper cor-
rective measures must be implemented. This means that some
socially responsible agency (presumably the Federal government)
is beseiged with the problem of either revising the market system
to encourage efficient common property resource utilization or of
providing adequate incentives exogenous of the market system.
Proponents of the market system have historically advo-
cated the merits of the former approach. Others, recognizing
the difficulties of such an undertaking have recommended the
latter. The source of the incentive is beyond the scope of this
section. However, it is recognized that some attempts must be
made to account for this deficiency if the water quality management
problem is to be solved. It should be further recognized that the
difficulty encountered in either approach is that of developing a
policy or framework that produces optimum results, i.e., over-
pricing or underpricing effluents would not produce socially optimum
results, thereby adding little to the solution of the overall problem.
While the complexities and complications are great and the
alternatives are many, a slight digression into specific attempts
to provide the financial incentive inherently lacking in the market
mechanism will further illuminate the basic problem.
Since the postulation extended is that the market system
fails to include all costs of production (externalities) including
waste disposal, a financial penalty that makes it at least as ex-
pensive to dump untreated waste into the environment as it is to
pay for waste treatment should contribute to environmental cleanup.
Operationally, the financial penalty may be in the form of a fine,
-------
a tax on the end product, or a system of charges of so much per
ton of waste discharged. Financial rewards (subsidies) for waste
treatment are the reverse of penalties and are similar from an
analytical viewpoint.
Fines or threat of fines are frequently used to enforce
compliance with environmental standards. Fines with or with-
out an injunction that forces closure can be severe enough to
accomplish the objective of waste cleanup. This alternative does
have disadvantages. First, the fine comes after the fact. Not
only does excessive pollution occur but considerable delay maybe
expected before action is taken to remedy the situation. Litigation
proceedings are never swift and the growing list promises to be
both expensive and time consuming. Also, fines probably create
more ill will than any other procedure. No one likes to be publicly
censored or forced to endure court proceedings which question
innocence. Fines can therefore be expected to lose as many
friends of environmental causes as are won.
A tax becomes a more desirable alternative. Admittedly,
it is difficult to estimate the amount of tax needed and it often has
the added disadvantage of administrative complexity and expense.
But the greatest impact of a per unit tax is on the consumption of a
product whose production (and ultimate disposal) causes many of
our environmental problems. Use of a tax on the consumer product
or resources used in its production leads to a smaller quantity taken
by consumers and simultaneously provides revenue for environmental
c leanup.
Perhaps the most desirable financial penalty would be a sur-
charge or tax levied directly on the polluter discharging waste into
the air or water. By levying a charge on waste in excess of "normal
levels," business firms have an economic incentive to reduce the
amount of water or air carried waste, thereby relieving the load on
treatment plants. As an example of its effectivenessi a surcharge
of 8 cents per pound of BOD in the city of Durham, North Carolina
resulted in internal plant changes to bring about a 70 percent reduc-
tion in daily waste discharge. (2. ) Further, it is an efficient alternative
in that the worst offenders pay the largest share of abatement cost
while the tax is small to those who have already attempted to reduce
waste.
-------
The charge method can, through a series of approximations,
be set to bring about a specified stream or air standard. A charge
also brings continuous pressure to update waste technology. Its
effects are felt at all levels of waste discharge where a standard
may be set to bring no change to minimum level polluters or pro-
vides no incentive for change below the required level. The charge
is desirable from an economic view in that firms recognize it as
a cost of doing business and adjust to it on a marginal basis.
Even though a tax system levied on an individual point-by-
point discharge basis would be quite expensive to enforce and ad-
minister, that objection could be largely overcome by an across-
the-board tax schedule applicable to all who discharge into a par-
ticular stream or air quality control region.
Environmental objectives may also be met by offering finan-
cial rewards rather than penalties. A subsidy for environmental
cleanup could be any of several types. An investment tax credit
or favorable depreciation schedule could be sufficient incentive to
invest in equipment to reduce waste. Grants or tax credits could
be employed to induce use of recycled materials while favorable
credit terms to cities could pay for water and sewer facilities.
Although the ^ist of fiscal techniques could be extensive, the common
thread is meeting environmental cleanup objectives at public expense
rather than the expense of business firms or local governments.
Subsidizing environmental cleanup carries distinct dis-
advantages. Of first importance, the worst offenders are those
most rewarded and therefore the subsidy is objectionable on equity
grounds. The prospect of receiving a public subsidy will frequently
delay abatement programs until all avenues to the grant are exhausted.
In fact, the subsidy alone does not guarantee cleanup. The polluter
may choose not to take advantage of the lower cost, especially if
there will be a large outlay in addition to the subsidy. Since the
subsidy is not paid directly by the consumer of the final product
there is no decline in quantity taken or no change in relative price
of the product. While a charge may lead the business firm to make
optimal adjustments to reduce waste discharge, with subsidy schemes,
there is no comparable incentive to choose production methods that
lead to less waste and there could be encouragement to do the opposite.
Finally, financial penalties yield revenue while subsidies are a drain
on the public treasury which must be defended each time budget ap-
proval is discussed.
-------
The aboVte material reiterates the need to provide financial
incentives (endogenous or exogenous of the market system) into
common property allocation and also provides several examples
of such attempts. While it is not an exhaustive list of corrective
measures, it is illustrative of attempts to solve the pollution problem
by attaching the source of the problem, i.e. , the introduction of exo-
genous financial incentives to provide the impetus to efficiently allo-
cate and utilize common property resources.
It further emphasizes that the primary source of the pollution
problem can be traced back to the lack of a complete market system.
Additional research is needed to develop and explore various alter-
natives to alleviate this intrinsic deficiency. We have no allusion in
respect to the magnitude of the task proposed nor are we suggesting
that this be the first undertaking. There is no doubt, however, that
the problem is bound in these terms and an effective and lasting solu-
tion cannot be reached without directly facing these issues. To this
end we merely state that all other problems are secondary to this
primary problem of common property resource allocation and that
the long run needs do not necessarily have the highest priority in the
short run. It does appear, however, that a great deal of effort has
been expended in a symptomatic treatment of pollution problems with-
out recognition of the basic problem.
C. Critical Evaluation and jSummary of Existing Water
Quality Management Literature
For the purposes of the following discussion, the evaluation
of water quality associated models and procedures shall proceed on
the following basis:
(1) Evaluation on a theoretical basis
(2) Evaluation on an implementational basis
(3) Summary statement
-------
Evaluation on a Theoretical Basis
The evaluation of economic models and procedures associ-
ated with water quality management on a theoretical basis could
lead far afield by attempting to discuss the intricacies of a large
number of specific models. The desire here is to provide a general
summary evaluation on a theoretical basis and such temptations must
therefore be avoided by developing an alternative delineating criteria
other than numerous theoretical and methodological considerations
of specific models.
One such delineating criteria is to segment the approaches
into two broad categories based on the level at which they address
the water quality management problem, i.e., general equilibrium
as opposed to partial equilibrium analysis. For the present pur-
poses this distinction is more manageable and meaningful than
delving into specific methodologies, procedures and assumptions
of specific models. This taxonomy is further desirable for present
purposes in that all approaches are, by definition, either general
or partial in nature, thereby providing a natural circumscription
for the general summary that follows. The basic distinction is
that the partial equilibrium, models consider only a subset of the
total problem while the general equilibrium models are concerned
with the problem in its entirety (including secondary as well as
primary impacts as they a'ffect the total area or national economy).
General Equilibrium Analysis
The general equilibrium methods discussed in Phase I in-
cluded the following specific models and types of models:
(1) Material-Process-Product Models
(2) Ecologic-Economic Models
(3) Kneese Model
(4) Input-Output Models, and
(5) Systems Analysis
These models, as well as other general equilibrium models,
have the advantage of placing the water quality management problem
in its proper conceptual setting by considering the entire problem
with all of its various interactions. The problem is normally viewed
-------
in a highly aggregated framework perhaps even to the point of con-
sidering welfare maximization objectives involving social (public)
choice and public decision making. This general approach is further
intuitively pleasing in that it is consistent and compatible with the
approaches to welfare maximization in general. It is also desirable
since it is complementary to natural-physical relationships suggesting
that all resources are interrelated and intertwined further indicating
a "general" or biosphere approach to resource management should
be adopted.
The proponents of general equilibrium approaches further
suggest that only at the general equilibrium level can the relevant
economic and ecological considerations, decisions and trade-offs
be effectively evaluated in arriving at desirable national (or even
global) resource management objectives and subsequent policies
designed to achieve these objectives. Water quality induced price
changes (output and input prices), production shifts, process changes,
interindustry interaction and all other second round or secondary
effects of environmental degradation or alternatively, pollution
abatement standards, must be assessed if definitive results are
to be realized. These impacts are visible only when the problem
is structured in a comprehensive or general equilibrium framework.
Studies that have utilized general equilibrium methods have
succeeded in quantifying sizeable and in some cases unanticipated
secondary impacts. (3V For this reason unquestioned reliance on
partial equilibrium studies could result in misdirected and un-
warranted results and priorities. The general equilibrium models
must, therefore, be preferred to partial equilibrium models if the
selection is based solely on theoretical considerations.
It must be realized, however, that the general models are
in an embryonic stage of development as a water quality manage-
ment tool. Most attempts to develop general models actually involve
adaptation of previously existing general equilibrium models. Their
success as a practical water quality management tool (at the present
time and stage of development) is somewhat less than satisfactory.
They have been applied to small geographical areas with varying
degrees of success but have not been developed, refined or applied
to assess water quality associated impacts on a national basis.
8
-------
One intrinsic disadvantage of the general models is that
the highly aggregated or general approach obscures a significant
amount of detail. The amount of detail lost may be sufficient
enough to prevent the approach from becoming a viable water qual-
ity management tool. (The validity of this criticism may not be
universally accepted since it is also the general approach and high
level of aggregation that permits and enhances the comparison of
various alternatives and trade-offs required to maximize net social
welfare.) There are many natural and physical water quality re-
lated constraints and considerations that are not amenable to high
levels of aggregation. While it is true that economic considerations
may best be assessed through general equilibrium methods, the
judicious incorporation of numerous natural and physical consider-
ations ineluctably involved is not achieved through the use of ex-
tensive aggregation or general equilibrium methods.
The question becomes one of deciding which approach is
feasible in the short run and is also complementary to the solu-
tion of the problem in its long run comprehensive setting.
Unfortunately, data constraints and the present state-of-knowledge
prevents the general models from being considered readily accessible,
viable water quality management tools that can be implemented in
the short run.
Before leaving the general models, it should be added that
river basin simulation models appear to possess a considerable
potential for becoming a useful and comprehensive management
tool by approaching the problem within a comprehensive river
basin framework applied to a specific hydrologic area. The
adoption of this technique enhances the possibility of incorporating
complex water quality and hydrologic characteristics of specific
areas into a meaningful framework thereby further increasing
the likelihood of accurately assessing complex intertwined water
quality associated impacts. The identification and quantification
of these interrelated physical characteristics further facilitates
a definitive assessment of the economic impacts. Since it is also
possible that pollution abatement standards will, by necessity, be
source oriented, any attempts to quantify effluents by type, source
and geographic area will also facilitate the implementation of spatially
dependent pollution abatement standards. The river basin simulation
model is one practical way to deal with the comprehensive water qual-
ity problem within a framework that is capable of incorporating com-
plex hydrologic relationships. It must be realized that at the present
time, this technique has been applied to only selected basins and sub-
basins with the general application of this procedure to all major river
basins remaining relatively unexplored and incomplete.
-------
It is also interesting to note that one other general equil-
ibrium approach to water quality management has frequently been
utilized by various research groups. This method is input-output
analysis. The complex interindustry impacts of deteriorating water
quality or pollution abatement standards can best be identified and
quantified with the aid of this method of analysis. While the river
basin simulation models are perhaps more sensitive to the hydro-
logic relationships within a region, input-output analysis is best
suited to quantifying complex interindustry relationships.
A word of caution is also in order at this juncture. The
quest for national water quality associated benefit and cost of
control estimates and functions has prompted some to generalize
previously completed area studies to acquire the desired national
estimates. It must be realized that spatial differences in econ-
omic activity, hydrologic conditions, as well as extreme variations
in prevailing water quality and water quality requirements severely
limits the value and creditability of national estimates or functions
acquired in such a manner. The methodological and theoretical
assumptions appropriate for small area studies are not necessarily
appropriate when larger geographical areas are considered. Such
attempts are, therefore, acceptable only if the limitations and dan-
gers are explicitly recognized and if more acceptable methods are
unrealistic due to time and effort constraints. When faced with a
similar problem, M. M. Kelso reached a most appropriate con-
clusion:
Man is damned forever to partial incremental choice
criteria, in part because of the limitations of his
finite mind and in part because the peak criterion
in his collective choice must be objectified, ver-
balized and quantified, distilling away some of the
subjective value feelings implicit in ultimate goals.
The economic analyst serving as an expert consultant
to the public decision maker is doubly damned, not
only to partial incremental choices, but to working with
only a few sub-set criteria within the two sub-class
criteria of economic efficiency and economic equity.
He is restricted to sub-sets so few that he can handle
their complex interrelations and so sharply delineated
that he can sense them clearly and quantify them ac-
curately.
The practical consideration for us as economic
analysis is how partial must we be? ( 4 )
10
-------
Partial Equilibrium Analysis
The second type of approach based on the above taxonomy
is partial equilibrium analysis--partial in the respect that no attempt
is made to view the entire problem with all of its ramifications and
implications. These studies characteristically incorporate various
methodologies and procedures tailored to isolating and studying
certain facets of the water quality problem in detail. In general,
they tend to be problem-project-crisis oriented in nature in that
they typically are concerned with estimating or quantifying only a
small portion of the primary or first round impacts that are of im-
mediate interest or importance. Many of these studies are there-
fore differentiating in that they assess various water quality reper-
cussions without regard for how the results or methods contribute
to the solution of other questions or contribute to the total.
While these models are adequate for the particular problem
they are addressing, it must be kept in mind that they are partial
in nature and as such are not designed to assess the total impacts of
water quality deterioration. There is a temptation to apply these
approaches to the solution of the total problem by aggregating the
results of various partial studies to achieve national water quality
associated benefit and costs of control functions. Since these studies
and methods are designed to satisfy or answer only isolated micro-
economic aspects of the problem, such attempts to aggregate are
inevitably subject to methodological criticisms. For example, a
variety of studies have assessed the impacts of water pollution or
pollution abatement standards as applicable to a particular industry.
These studies frequently assume constant (input and output) prices,
production patterns and processes. Under these rather restrictive
assumptions, industry impacts can be accurately assessed. When,
however, all industries are subject to pollution impacts or abate-
ment standards or water quality deterioration simultaneously, the
derived results are no longer applicable due to the violation of the
study assumptions, i.e., the constancy of relative prices, produc-
tion patterns and production processes. The fallacy of composition
is quickly encountered. By changing the scope of the problem
(attempting to sum various partial studies), the problem itself
changes. The partial studies are by-and-large essentially non-
additive, and somewhat noncomparable in nature due to variations
in methodologies, procedures and assumptions.
11
-------
It is also surprising and perhaps shocking to search the
literature and discover the very limited number of partial equili-
brium studies that have attempted to identify and quantify com-
prehensive first round water quality associated benefits and costs.
In all the literature that was reviewed for Phase I and II, very few
"comprehensive" partial equilibrium studies materialized.
One of the many techniques that have been utilized in partial
equilibrium analysis has been the cost benefit analysis. The following
material included in Phase I as a summary of the weaknesses of
traditional benefit cost analysis for dealing with environmental
quality issues, is applicable to the evaluation of any and all partial
equilibrium analysis as an approach to water quality management:
Traditional benefit cost analysis has numerous
short falls as a management tool to evaluate
policies designed to improve environmental
quality.
"Most benefit cost approaches are inadequate
not because there is anything wrong with using
a benefit cost ratio per se, but because frequently
the benefit estimations, a good many of the cost
estimations, the treatment of uncertainty, and
all of the time discount rates are improperly
derived." (Whipple, 1971)
Two general limitations of benefit cost analysis
have been concisely summarized by Prest and
Turvey (1965). "First, cost benefit analysis as
generally understood is a technique for taking
decisions within a framework which has to be
decided upon in advance and which involves a
wide range of considerations, many of them of
a political or social character. Secondly, cost
benefit techniques as so far developed, are least
relevant and serviceable for what one might call
large-size investment decisions. If investment
decisions are so large relatively to a given econ-
omy. .., that they are likely to alter the constel-
lation of relative outputs and prices over the whole
economy, the standard technique is likely to fail
us, for nothing less than some sort of general
equilibrium approach would suffice in such cases."
12
-------
The Prest-Turvey critique implies that benefit
cost analysis can be applied to environmental
problems only with great difficulty and may be
conceptually and empirically inappropriate.
Traditional benefit cost analysis has evolved as
an analytical device for measuring development
effects rather than environmental repercussions.
The result is that a general conceptual framework
for evaluating pollution abatement policies has not
been formulated which has received a generally
favorable review. The major difficulty revolves
around the identification, and measurement of
benefits from pollution abatement. Traditional
benefit measures used in evaluating development
projects have limited application to environmental
repercussions because they have failed to embody
externalities on affected processes. It is noted,
however, that development effects are also a major
component of social welfare. Both private and
public aspects are involved. ( 5 )
The evaluation solely on a theoretical basis has produced two
diametrically opposed results. The general equilibrium models
view the water quality management problem in a proper conceptual
framework, possess enormous data input requirements and enables
basic trade-offs to be evaluated. The final output in its aggregated
form especially considering the present state of development has
the disadvantage of lacking sufficient detail required to be a viable
water quality management tool.
On the other hand the partial equilibrium models do not
address the water quality management problem in a proper con-
ceptual framework. Even the most fundamental trade-offs occa-
sionally escape the analysis. They are, however, more detailed
and amenable to the spatial economic and hydrologic characteristics
embedded in the water quality management problem than are the
general equilibrium methods.
13
-------
All water quality management models or studies may be
classified as general or partial equilibrium due to the tautologous
nature of the classification scheme adopted. Unfortunately, how-
ever, the associated merits and resulting recommendations emanating
from such a classification scheme are not as straightforward and
concise as the classification scheme itself. The search for im-
mediate answers dictates the adoption of an adhoc procedure util-
izing the strengths of both types of models, i.e., from the partial
equilibrium studies functional estimates of water quality associated
benefits--interpreted as first approximations--may be obtained and
subsequently tempered, conditioned and interpreted with the insight
gained from selected general equilibrium studies.
Evaluation on an Implementational Basis
An evaluation on any other basis other than a theoretical
basis may be subject to some criticism in that either an approach
is theoretically sound and should be pursued or theoretically de-
ficient and should be abandoned. Statements similar to the above,
as well as other methodological decision rules, have considerable
appeal; however, there are a variety of reasons justifying con-
tinued development of the partial equilibrium models as a means
of acquiring national water quality associated benefits and cost
estimates.
The reasons for this are obvious, First, the complexity
and magnitude of the water quality problem with many presently
unknown and unidentified relationships frequently necessitated the
adoption of very pragmatic simplified and approximating procedures.
The level of effort associated with general equilibrium analysis is
frequently staggering and completely prohibitive. Secondly, many
of the functional relationships required in a comprehensive or gen-
eral equilibrium study are presently lacking, i.e. , many of the
first round or primary impacts and relationships are not under-
stood or specified and frequently these relationships are essential
inputs in the construction of general equilibrium models. Thirdly,
many studies must be concerned with the local impacts of water
quality deteriorations and as such must adopt partial equilibrium
methods as opposed to general equilibrium methods due to the inherent
difficulties of adopting general equilibrium technique to the evaluation
of economic impacts of small geographical areas. Lastly, there are
14
-------
many aspects of the water quality management problem that have to
be approached on a disaggregated level. For example, desired water
quality depends on beneficial use (withdrawal, nonwithdrawal, con-
sumptive and nonconsumptive use). Since water use is spatially de-
pendent and water qualities vary from area to area, the imposition of
a universal water quality standard is not consistent with basic econ-
omic efficiency objectives. The quintessence of the above items is
that there are many consj.derations which tend to indicate that water
quality items may have to be viewed and analyzed with partial
equilibrium techniques as a first approximation to the eventual
solution.
It, therefore, appears that both types of approaches (general
equilibrium and partial equilibrium) have their own respective
strengths and limitations which differ drastically when different
criteria (theoretical as opposed to implementational) are used in
the evaluation process.
Summary Statement
Before proceeding to other considerations, it is perhaps
desirable to summarize in general terms some objective and sub-
jective conclusions that have been formulated as of this point.
In general, there is evidence of considerable lack of
direction and coordination in the water quality management
literature. This limitation has been recognized by others and
is succinctly summarized by Kneese and Bower (1968). "In most
regions, water quality management is at a primitive level. At the
same time, the technical and analytical means for implementing
such systems are developing rapidly. The institutional means lag
far behind." ( 6)
There is also the failure on the part of many to recognize
the primary source of the environmental quality problem which
inevitably leads to a symptomatic approach to the problem rather
than a direct confrontation of the major factors involved in the
water quality management problem. More precisely, many partial
equilibrium studies delineate various aspects of the water quality
management issue for detailed analysis without regard for how the
particular segments can be fitted together to portray the total pic-
ture. Many of the partial equilibrium studies are highly project-
problem-crisis oriented and contribute very little to the derivation
15
-------
of national benefit and cost of control functions. This is further
complicated by the fact that the partial equilibrium studies typically
consider only a very small portion of the total first round or pri-
mary impacts of water quality deterioration. The cost or risks of
generalizing or aggregating these studies to derive national benefit
and costs, of control estimates and functions may indeed be great.
This is particularly true when one considers the extreme variation
in area water qualities, effluent flows, assimilative capacity and
economic activity.
Neither approach (general or partial) has been adequately
developed so as to be a readily available tool applicable to the
problem at hand (derivation of national water quality associated
benefit cost estimates and functions). The general equilibrium
approaches currently lack the requisite data input and the partial
equilibrium studies have not corrected this basic deficiency by
providing the required functional relationships and data input in
general. This paradoxical and circuitous conclusion is a rather
uncomfortable summary of the effectiveness of past endeavors
considering the urgency of various water quality management tasks.
A unified sense of direction and coordination satisfying both long
run management objectives and short run goals must be developed.
An appropriate summary is provided by Professor Kelso.
"The complexity of multiple sub-set mixes together with the diffi-
culties inherent in analysis of the effects of investment on the total
economic system in space and time has led analysts such as Profes-
sor Wantrup and Lindblom to reject any notion that maximization of
a peak criterion is possible and to assert that the best man can do
is to make his partial comparisons among an available array of
alternatives and to choose the one which appears in the light of
present considerations to generate consequences that move in the
direction of the preferred state at an acceptable rate of speed and
sacrifice." (7)
Arthur Maass has likewise concluded, "After the agencies
have learned how to work with two-term objective functions, they
can try to solve for more complex ones." ( 8 )
16
-------
D. Research Needs and Priorities
The statements above outline the primary environmental
management problem and assess the principal existing water
quality management literature. With this foundation, attention
is turned toward establishment of research needs and priorities.
Acceptance of the primary problem is far from satisfying
since it is realized that its solution would require an unacceptable
long time frame. Many critical areas of water pollution cannot be
postponed for this length of time. In the interim, partial or
secondary problems must be addressed.
To facilitate further discussion, we have classified the
secondary problems into two general categories: (1) data input
needs, and (2) methodological and theoretical research needs.
Subsequently, a summary of priority research needs are presented.
Data Input Needs
The solution of problems cannot be fruitfully pursued until
the required data base has been provided. Water quality manage-
ment problems are not unique in this respect. From the state-of-
the-art review and the preceding evaluation of existing work presented
in this report, it should be no surprise that cost and benefit data in-
put constraints represents one of the largest obstacles that must be
hurdled in the search of a satisfactory solution to the environmental
management problem.
At the present time the physical, biological, chemical and
engineering data input has not been provided in sufficient detail.
Even though the effects of some pollutants have been identified
and quantified, a comprehensive understanding of all natural and
physical relationships associated with water quality is far from
complete. These relationships must be established if the damages
of deteriorating water quality or benefits from mandatory pollution
abatement standards are to be assessed. The absence of such data
input at the present time limits the accuracy of comprehensive national
benefit and cost functions associated with deteriorating water quality
and likewise severely limits the assessment of benefits accruing from
water quality improvement.
17
-------
Some of the physical, chemical, biological, economic and
engineering data input needs include, but are not limited to, the
following items:
1. Relationships between waste treatment cost and effluent
water quality for each pollutant and for each type of in-
dustrial and municipal wastes.
2. The quantity of each pollutant from non-point sources
which enters each receptor.
3. The extent of assimilation of each pollutant by natural
processes in each receptor.
4. The effect of each pollutant on municipal and industrial
water treatment processing costs where surface waters
are used for municipal and industrial water supplies.
5. The effects of untreated pollutants on industrial and
domestic activities.
6. The effect of each pollutant on fish and wildlife support
capabilities.
7. The relationships between recreational usage and
water quality, i.e. , contact and noncontact water
based recreational demand and water quality.
8. Effects of each pollutant on the useful life of each
reservoir and lake.
9. Effects of each pollutant on health.
10. Effects of each pollutant on final receptors such as
Lake Erie, Gulf of Mexico and oceans.
11. Establishment of regional functions relating degree
of treatment and resulting water quality.
18
-------
Without the knowledge of the above relationships, attempts
to optimize regional or national water quality will be limited to a
"hit and miss" basis without a well defined sense of direction.
The results emanating therefrom will quite likely be highly suspect
in the absence of basic well specified relationships such as those
listed above.
Although a comprehensive understanding of all of the
physical-natural relationships is not available at the present time
and will not be in the immediate future. Efforts to fully utilize
existing data are noticeably absent. Many problem-project-crisis
oriented studies provide point estimates of benefits and/or costs
of control associated with water quality while the development of
functional relationships relating benefits and costs to specific un-
desirable water quality constituents, are basically lacking at the
present time and represent a pressing constraint. This is par-
ticularly true of water quality associated benefit functions. There
are a variety of reasons other than data availability that are respon-
sible for this shortcoming. The existence of externalities, in-
tangible and indirect effects, the lack of an acceptable aggregation
scheme and an acceptable unit of measure valuing nonmonetary
benefits has increased the difficulties of constructing a compre-
hensive composite water quality benefit function. The identification
and quantification of these effects must also be considered an urgently
pressing research problem.
Even though some consider the development of appropriate
benefit estimation methodology and subsequent establishment of
water quality associated benefit functions as perhaps the single
most pressing water research problem, the establishment of a
composite cost of control function also represents a significant
research deficiency. While data availability is one constraint
that must be eliminated or at least partially circumvented, the
successful completion of these activities--establishment of both
water quality associated benefit and cost functions--also hinges
on the successful fulfillment of certain currently unresolved and
unsupported methodological and theoretical and objective tasks.
19
-------
Without the establishment of the above functional relation-
ships, the area of concentration (specific pollutants, receptors
and pollution sources), optimal timing of pollution abatement in-
vestment, optimization of regional and national water quality,
and consequences of deferred action cannot be ascertained.
While these functional relationships depend on data availability,
certain methodological and theoretical implications are intrinsically
involved and are of equal importance.
Methodological and Theoretical Research Needs
A series of general methodological and theoretical research
needs are presented next without regard for data and methodology
constraints. These needs stem from the primary resource manage-
ment problem as described above. Water quality management is
required in a dynamic setting and over a broad range of hydrologic
and economic conditions. The common property resource aspects
of the problem with the prevalence of externalities complicates
the issues involved. These and other factors are embedded in the
general research needs below.
Some general methodological and theoretical research
problems and needs (not listed in order of priority) include:
1. Development of methods and procedures to identify
and quantify water associated benefit and cost func-
tions relating specific benefits and costs to specific
pollutants.
2. Development of economic and hydrologic models to
identify and quantify complex intra- and interbasin
relationships.
3. Extension and refinement of accounting measures,
such as "insurance values," for uncertain water
quality associated costs and benefits.
4. Formulation of a measure of value that can be used as
a common denominator additive measure to effectively
evaluate all intangible and indirect nonmonetary costs
and benefits associated with changes in water quality.
20
-------
(Since many of the potential benefits of water quality
protection or improvement are intangible and indirect
esthetic, health and ecological benefit that are not
measured by market transactions, an accurate esti-
mate of composite benefits is not generally possible
within present day methodologies.)
5. Development of alternative pollution abatement policies
designed to minimize undesirable equity and distribu-
tion impacts associated with water quality control.
6. Quantification of complex water quality substitution
effects. As water quality deteriorates, certain sub-
stitution effects may be expected. Water using acti-
vities and processes will begin seeking alternative
input sources, processes and outlets as water quality
deteriorates. For example, water quality degradation
will directly and indirectly encourage reduced expendi-
tures on water based recreational activity. The reduc-
tion in water based expenditures represents a loss to
this sector of the economy. If one is interested in
national impacts of water quality deterioration, the
correct figure is not the total reduction in only water
based recreational expenditures but rather the net
reduction or impacts associated with the change in
total recreational expenditures, i.e., explicitly recog-
nizing the substitution phenomenon. These complex
relationships must be further developed if realistic
national benefit and cost of control functions are to be
established. (9)
7. Development of an aggregation framework to assess
regional and national pollution control costs and benefits.
8. Assessment of alternative political, legal and institu-
tional arrangements needed to perform water pollution
control management functions.
21
-------
9. Development of procedures to project and evaluate
alternative distributions of benefits and costs
through time, i.e. , "time profiles," including the
use of a social discount rate to compute present
value.
10. Estimation of net social benefits attributable to water
pollution control measures, i.e., measurement of a
social welfare function. "Water pollution control
measures are expected to impact economic structures
with consequent relative shifts in supply and demand
relationships. Such consequences call for analysis of
the social welfare function.
The above list includes a variety of methodological and
theoretical research needs, some of which suggest that a sub-
stantial reassessment of commonly held social objectives is in
order. The listing is presented in broad terms and unstructured
in reference to the assignment of priorities. No attempt has been
made at this time to indicate th priorities associated with these
research needs or to classify them into short run or long run needs,
What, therefore, remains to be accomplished is the establishment
of research needs and priorities with data and methodology con-
straints.
Long Run Economic Research Needs and Priorities
The objective of this section is to provide a general summary
of "ordered" research needs. (To the extent possible, the order
reflects priorities for these research needs.) Many of these re-
search needs and priorities are well documented while others are
the product of Phase I and the subsequent evaluation. Long run
and short run research needs and priorities are presented in
summary and enumerated form below.
22
-------
The long run economic research needs include:
1. Develop a comprehensive common property resource
allocation system to assist in the efficient allo-
cation and utilization of common property resources--
endogenous or exogenous of the market mechanism.
Alternative institutional structures are implicitly
involved.
2. Further develop and implement general equilibrium
models specifically designed to assess the economic
impacts of changing water quality and mandatory pollu-
tion abatement standards.
3. Refine the above mentioned models until they possess
the required degree of sophistication to evaluate qom-
plex trade-offs at the aggregate level but still possess
the detail required to be useful regional water quality
management tools. Incorporate measures to achieve
dynamic efficiency realizing that production process,
technology, demographic and social preference changes
occur.
4. Develop a measure of value that can be used as a common
denominator, additive measure of intangible or indirect
water quality associated benefits and costs.
5. Develop "insurance values" or alternative measures
designed to handle unknown contingencies associated
with water quality determination.
6. Reassess and evaluate the social discount jrate currently
used in evaluating public investment projects.
7. Explore regional, national and international legal,
institution and structural changes required for effective
monitoring and surveillance of emissions and realization
of environmental objectives.
23
-------
The above hierarchy of long term economic research needs
is somewhat misleading in that it is extremely difficult to assign
meaningful priorities in that all are requisite to an effective and
lasting solution to the environmental management problem. In the
interim it is expedient to concentrate on less ambitious short run
research needs and priorities.
Short Run Economic Research Needs and Priorities
The following items constitute economic research needs
that could be at least partially satisfied in the short run given
existing data and methodology constraints. The three major
divisions and subdivisions are listed in their relative order of
importance.
It should not be surprising to find that benefit estimation is
the singularly most important need to be satisfied in the short run.
I. Develop, refine and implement methodology for
assessing water quality associated impacts with
special emphasis on the following short run re-
search needs.
A. Benefit estimation
1. Refinement of overall benefit estimation
methodology.
2. Refinement and implementation of intangible
benefit estimation methodology and techniques.
3. Estimation of substitution impacts.
4. Development of multivariate water quality
associated benefit functions.
5. Interfacing economic, hydrologic, biological
and engineering water quality models.
6. Estimation of irreversible damages.
7. Development of a satisfactory aggregation
scheme.
24
-------
B. Cost estimation
1. Refinement of overall cost of pollution abate-
ment methodology.
2. Development of nonpoint pollution estimate and
cost of treatment.
3. Development of a treatment versus resulting
stream quality function.
4. Further development of least cost treatment
strategies.
5. Development of cost aggregation framework.
C. Implicit in all of the above items is the development
of a satisfactory data base including but not limited
to the following items,
1. Pollutant level by receptor
2. Effluent flows by source
3. Effluent flows by process
4. Precise water quality monitoring data
5. Damage thresholds and impact ranges
6. Critical effluent levels
7. Synergistic effects
II. Develop pollution abatement policy alternatives with
special emphasis on the following items:
A. Development of spatially variable policies and
abatement standards.
B. Minimization of adverse equity and distribution
effects.
C. Development of alternative policies to provide in-
ternal incentives to reduce effluent loads.
III. Analysis and inauguration of institutional and structural
changes required to implement many of the above items.
25
-------
Immediate Research Needs and Priorities
While all of the above items constitute short run economic
research needs and priorities that could be eliminated given pre-
sent data and methodology constraints, there is great disparity in
the importance or urgency associated with each of these items.
There is also the need to further develop and refine techniques
useful in appraising short run priorities so as to insure that
current resources and efforts are properly directed. For this
reason those items representing the greatest need have been
singled out and listed below:
1. Continue to develop, refine and implement procedures
useful in ascertaining the most detrimental pollutants.
2. Continued refinement of water quality associated benefit
estimation methodology.
3. Development and implementation of benefit estimation
methodology appropriate for the estimation of intangible
water quality associated benefits.
4. Investigation of complex water quality substitution
effects.
5. Development and implementation of multivariant
benefit function (relating benefits to several key
pollutants).
6. Interfacing economic, biological, hydrological and
engineering models.
E. Subjective and Objective Benefit and Cost Estimates
In addition to the above research needs and priorities there
is considerable value to be gained in further summarizing and
assessing the current status of benefit and cost estimates. For
the most part these items are rather subjective and tenuous but
possess considerable value in that the urgency of present action
requires prompt and immediate deployment of pollution abatement
measures in selected areas representing the greatest immediate
and short run need. It is with this thought that a variety of sub-
jective and objective water quality associated benefit and cost
matrices have been developed and presented in Appendix A of
this report. It should be recognized that this represents only a
first approximation of what is presented as the number one im-
mediate research need.
26
-------
F. Directions of Further Study
The above material represents an extension beyond the state-
of-the-arts review by providing a critical evaluation of the existing
literature based on several delineating criteria. While this extension
was not explicitly required, it must be either explicitly or implicitly
considered in the development of the research needs and priorities.
The specification of areas of needed emphasis further requires
selection be made on the basis of current research development.
The state-of-the-arts and the numerous complexities encountered
seem to indicate that the water quality management task is an incessant
project that requires further elaboration and extension at every inter-
vening step.
This is indeed the justification for much of the remainder of
this report. Detailed analysis of existing work has revealed many
methodological shortcomings that should be addressed. The material
that follows makes inroads toward the eventual solution of several cur-
rent water quality associated methodological and theoretical problems.
In the subsequent chapters, the only type of approach that is
considered is partial equilibrium analysis. Considering the current
state-of-the-arts and level of effort considerations, this is the only
feasible approach. Several partial equilibrium studies are reviewed
in detail followed by various extensions. Alternative approaches
possessing considerable merit are also developed.
Chapter II deals with general methodology in a partial equili-
brium framework. Several partial equilibrium studies are appraised
and alternative approaches and procedures are also explored. Most of
the remainder of the report (Chapters, III, IV and V) is concerned with
further elaboration of these techniques.
Chapter VI is a general summary of this phase of the project
and proposed areas of emphasis for future research.
27
-------
Footnotes
(1) Milliman, J. W. ,"Welfare Economics, and Resource Develop-
ment," in Ian Burton and Robert W. Kates (eds.)» Readings In
Resource Management and Conservation, the University of
Chicago Press, 1965.
(2) Mangum, F. A., Jr., Policy Alternatives for Environmental
Improvement, Department of Economics, North Carolina State
University, 1972. (Unpublished Report)
(3) Kite, J. C. and Eugene A. Laurent, "An Economic-Ecologic
Model for Evaluating the Environmental Repercussion of Area
Development, " American Journal of Agricultural Economics,
Dec. , 1971.
(4) Kelso, M. M. , "The Criterion Problem in Decision-Making
for Public Investment," Water Resources and Economic
Development of the West. Report No. 15, Economic Criteria
Water Transfer, Economics of Water Quality, Economics of
Ground Water. Conference Proceedings, Committee on the
Economics of Water Resource Development of the Western
Agricultural Economics Research Council, Dec. 1966.
(5) Unger, S. G. , M. J. Emerson and D. L. Jordening, State-
of-the-Art Review: Pollution Control Benefits and Costs with
Emphasis on Water, A report to the Environmental Protection
Agency, Economic Analysis Branch, Washington, D. C., 1973.
(6) Kneese, A. V. and Blair T. Bower, Managing Water Quality;
Economics, Technology, Institutions, Resources for the Future,
Inc., John Hopkins Press, 1968.
(7) Ibid, i Kelso, M. M.
(8) Maass, A., Benefit Cost Analysis:"Its Relevance to Public
Investment Decisions, " The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
May 1966.
28
-------
(9) In general, the substitution phenomenon referred to frequently
in this report stems from the fact that there are alternative
uses of capital in the economy and also that there are numerous
alternative consumer expenditure outlets. This opportunity con-
cept is frequently encountered but seldom recognized in studies
assessing the economic impact of water quality degradation
(primarily because most studies are problem-project-crisis
oriented and are interested in ascertaining the economic im-
pacts of water quality degradation in reference to only one
isolated sector of the economy).
Kneese and Bower have, however, explicitly recognized this
phenomenon in a discussion of a hypothetical example concerning
markets, externalities and the social costs of pollution. The
example assumes that pollution results in the destruction of a
downstream fishing industry that utilizes resources valued at
100 and producing an annual return of 10. Upstream pollution
results in the distinction of the industry and the conclusion
reached is that ". . .the social cost of killing fish is 10 not 110
(market value of the fish), as is often implied in exhortations
to assess waste discharges with the cost of damages they cause."
(Reference 6)
The results, however, are predicted on the assumption that
the resources can be transferred to other sectors of the econ-
omy at no cost to other productive uses at either the same or
different locations.
This general concept, however, is particularly relevant
and must not be overlooked when the goal is to assess national
net social benefits of water pollution abatement or water quality
associated benefit and cost functions. It is also hypothesized
that this phenomenon is particularly important in water quality
associated recreational activities in that there are a variety of
outdoor recreational activities that are close substitutes for
water based recreational activity. The increasing mobility
of the population in general would seem to indicate greater
flexibility in the selection of type and location of possible
recreational substitutes.
The summary of this brief digression is that as water quality
deteriorates, increased expenditures on skiing, camping,
sightseeing, travel, tennis may be expected. The net social
cost of water quality degradation must reflect this phenomenon.
-------
SEC TTON II
A GENERAL METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH
A. Optimization of Net jiocialJVelfare
The underlying objective of the relatively recent environ-
mental quality thrust is not a new phenomenon but rather the inter-
minable pursuit of the maximization of human welfare. In this
respect the basic social objective has remained unaltered. The
uninterrupted growth of national income and the unprecedented
expansion of material wealth has permitted a reassessment of
priorities resulting in a shift from material welfare objectives
to intangible quality of life considerations. The basic objectives
and tasks of the economist throughout the transitory period have,
however, remained the same--developing criteria, analytical tools,
decision rules and guidelines to aid and facilitate policy makers in
their endeavors to develop policies and a general atmosphere con-
ducive to the attainment of social welfare objectives.
The shift in emphasis has been accompanied by a host of
complications and complexities that are rather tenuous in nature
and difficult to assimilate into existing analytical techniques. A
major portion of the complications arising from the shift in empha-
sis can be attributed to the need for establishing values and meas-
ures appropriate for and associated with numerous direct, indirect
and intangible social welfare components. While there has always
existed a need to consider, identify and quantify intangible social
welfare components, the increased emphasis on non-material
welfare has greatly increased this need. While the challenges are
great and the obstacles are many, they must be overcome or cir-
cumvented one by one if a lasting and equitable water quality
management solution is to be achieved.
It is difficult to think of another resource that has more
social welfare implications than does water. Water is used in
virtually every production process, it is an essential human and
natural life support ingredient and further has certain intrinsic
esthetically pleasing qualities in its unpolluted state. The degra-
dation of water quality impairs its value in all uses in varying
degrees. It is therefore difficult to conceptualize or formulate
the water quality management problem in any other framework
other than a social welfare maximization problem.
30
-------
The salient point of the above at first glance may appear
to be directing the discussion back to the general equilibrium as
opposed to partial equilibrium controversy that has been encoun-
tered in Phase I and the preceding evaluation. This, however,
is not the case as the only method of analysis to be encountered
for the duration of the report is partial equilibrium analysis. The
essence of the above is, however, that even though partial equili-
brium analysis will be utilized (as the only practical approach at
the present time), the acceptance or rejection of the welfare maxi-
mizing objective or goal has significant methodological implications.
That is, the adoption of partial equilibrium techniques is an explicit
recognition that many of the impacts of water quality degradation
will escape quantification. This does not, however, require the
relinquishment of ones obligations to recognize and consider various
welfare implications that are normally disregarded in partial equil-
ibrium techniques.
The vociferation by the general public for environmental
standards, the subsequent establishment of the Environmental
Protection Agency and the ensuing pollution abatement standards
is certain manifestation that the general public desires and values
environmental protection. It would, however, be foolhardy to assume
that material welfare is no longer valued or a relevant welfare con-
sideration. The final decision in reference to the desirability of
pollution abatement standards must be based on total social welfare
which is comprised of material wellbeing and other intangible con-
siderations such as esthetic appreciation emanating from environ-
mental quality enhancement. Any technique or method of analysis
used to assess environmental degradation must therefore incorpor-
ate or consider as many facets of water quality impairment as pos-
sible or at least explicitly recognize those considerations that are
relevant but not included because of data or state of knowledge con-
straints. Procedures that attempt to portray the total benefits of
water quality enhancement without explicit recognition of the many
limiting factors are truly derelict in their duty and oblivious of
their true obligations. Any partial equilibrium techniques adopted
must therefore constantly guard against becoming overly structured
or limited thereby omitting numerous essential considerations.
Several of the above precautions will be recalled as needed at vari-
ous points in later discussions.
31
-------
In addition to the above mentioned welfare considerations,
there are a variety of other pertinent considerations that must be
recognized preliminary to the discussion of specific estimation
techniques that can be used to derive national water quality associ-
ated benefit and cost estimates. Some of these items are listed
below.
1. The value of water is derived from its use (withdrawal,
nonwithdrawal, consumptive and nonconsumptive--
including intangible uses such as esthetic appreciation).
The assessment of the impacts of water quality degrada-
tion must therefore proceed on an individual beneficial
use basis since the individual uses are differentially
impacted by water quality deterioration.
2. Since dissimilar pollutants in varying concentrations
are more critical to some beneficial uses than to
others, a specific pollutant by beneficial use assess -
ment of water quality deterioration must be adopted.
3. The concentration of specific pollutants is equally im-
portant. If present in low concentrations, some pollu-
tants have minimal damage potential while at higher con-
centrations their presence may significantly impair the
utilitarian value of water. Other pollutants may be
damaging at high and low concentrations with minimal
damage at intermediate levels, e.g., florides. The
assessment of damage potentials must therefore be
with respect to a range of watejr quality levels if a
meaningful assessment of net benefits is to be realized.
4. Since economic activity is not dispersed uniformly over
the landscape and hydrologic conditions are also spatiallv
variable, it follows from the above three items that varvi
spatially dependent water quality _standards should be~evalV
uated to assure economic efficiency and maximization of
social welfare objectives. It also directly follows that
benefit and cost estimates applicable to one geographical
area may not be applicable to other areas.
5. By a complete assessment of both natural and man-made
pollutants and area economic and hydrologic conditions,
a social welfare area optimizing water quality could be
c onceptualized.
32
-------
6. The maximization of water associated net social bene-
fits dictates that optimal timing of pollution control
expenditures, total impacts^ (primary and secondary),
point of treatment and complex substitution effects
be further examined in detail.
7. Combination of the above points suggests a potential
danger in adopting universal industry and interin-
dustry abatement standards irrespective of local
economic and hydrologic conditions.
In the quest for a social welfare maximizing water quality
solution, the first step may be in the direction of estimating bene-
fit and cost of control functions. As suggested above, a number of
important water quality variables exist. Suspended solids, dis-
solved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand, coliform count, in-
organic phosphate, nitrogen, pH, water hardness and dissolved
solids are some of the more important variables. In searching
for the optimum water quality in a particular receptor, each of
these variables has certain costs and benefits associated with it.
National estimates of net benefits must be with respect to a certain
quality of water. Furthermore, it is well known that the optimum
quality of water varies both because of natural terrain and human
activity patterns. At Lake Tahoe the optimum quality is different
from that in the lower portion of the Missouri river, for example.
Because of this a procedure is needed which can lead to both an
understanding of optimum quality in a specific basin as well as
national estimates of net benefits.
The significance of the above is that water quality manage-
ment, if couched in a social -welfare setting, is not a single variate
problem that can be easily portrayed in simple pedestrian terms.
Water quality management is a multidimensional problem that must
be formulated in a manner that is appropriate and consistent with
multidimensionality. It is further possible that the unique spatial
characteristics of water quality management and the multidimen-
sionality in general may, in the end, be of such overwhelming im-
portance that water quality management on a basis other than a
small region by region approach may be self-defeating and totally
void of meaning.
33
-------
In view of the multiplicity of factors that must be considered,
it is indeed not surprising that few have attempted to establish national
water quality associated benefit and cost of control functions. The
absence of such endeavors has left sizeable voids in the development
of applicable methodology and estimation techniques.
B. Objectives
The fact that the development of national water quality
associated benefit and cost functions is virtually an unexplored
endeavor without precedence or frame of reference, the best
approach may well be to seek out and review procedures and
studies that have undertaken similar objectives on a regional
scale. A thorough evaluation of such studies can be expected
to provide considerable insight into the strength and limitations
of such techniques. With this background, it may then be possible
to adopt and extend these techniques and procedures to aid in the
acquisition of national water quality associated benefit and cost
functions or estimates. Another realistic alternative or possi-
bility is that the limitations of such methods may be found to be
of sufficient amplitude to discourage adaptation efforts in favor
of developing alternative methods and procedures.
The objectives of the current chapter are to critically
review and evaluate selected techniques, explore their potential
as a national water quality assessment tool and to consciously
seek out alternative procedures that are perhaps more amenable
to the task at hand.
C. Related Studies
As has been previously mentioned, there is almost a total
absence of studies that have attempted to establish water quality
associated estimates by beneficial use on a national basis. This
is not to say that national estimates do not exist for they do. By
and large these estimates are the result of extrapolating the esti-
mate of selected area studies. The merits and validity of these
estimates can best be assessed by first evaluating the methodol-
ogies and techniques utilized to produce the regional estimates
and secondly investigating the limitations and complications
34
-------
encountered in extrapolating these regional estimates to derive
national estimates. The studies that are of primary interest are
those that have undertaken the estimation of comprehensive bene-
fits emanating from water quality improvement in specific basin,
sub-basin, estuary or river reach considering a variety of bene-
ficial uses and specific pollutants. This limits the selection to a
very limited group of studies. Some of these include studies of
water quality impacts associated with the following surface water
bodies:
1. Ohio River Basin
: 2. Maumee River Basin
3. Delaware Estuary
4. Potomac Estuary
5. Yaquina Bay
6. Onondaga Lake
It must be pointed out at this juncture that these studies can
not be considered to be representative of most areas of the country.
The above geographical areas, with the exception of portions of the
Maumee Basin, are either heavy industrial areas, large population
centers or possess unique recreational features (Yaquina Bay) that
are not typical of all areas of the country. The generalization of
the results from these studies may therefore be somewhat question-
able.
Even within this limited group there is a great variation
in techniques, resulting estimates and the number of beneficial
uses considered. Some of the above mentioned studies would be
classified as general equilibrium studies and the remainder partial
equilibrium. It is perhaps most instructive to concentrate on the
partial equilibrium studies and especially those that are closely
akin to possible techniques that may be adopted and utilized to ac-
quire national water quality associated benefit and cost estimates.
Two of the above studies--the Ohio and Maumee River--have there-
fore been selected for further consideration.
A pioneering effort to establish regional pollution abate-
ment benefit and cost of control functions is found in H. C. Bramer's
doctoral dissertation, I960, ( 1 ). The study is a comprehensive
study of the benefits and cost of pollution abatement in the Ohio
River Basin considering several treatment strategies and a large
number of beneficial uses. The study represents a paramount
contribution to the state-of-the-knowledge in that it was completed
35
-------
in I960 and is still considered to be one of the better works which
undertakes the establishment of basin wide water quality associ-
ated benefits and costs. The analytical technique adopted in this
study is the traditional benefit cost analysis. Both benefits and
costs of pollution abatement are constructed as a function of per-
centage reduction in pollution load.
The pollution abatement benefit function was constructed
by considering the damages and production expenses that could
be avoided by numerous water-users if the pollution load were
decreased. In addition other benefits such as demand shifts re-
sulting from effluent removal were also considered, i.e. , increased
recreational expenditures as a result of effluent removal. In gen-
eral, very little was done to include other potential benefit con-
cepts such as latent or option demand. A complete list of the
benefits considered and the dollar estimates associated with
water quality improvement resulting from the inaugurative pri-
mary and secondary treatment of all emissions is presented in
Exhibit II-1.
The costs of pollution abatement in Bramer's work were,
aa previously stated, formulated as a function of percentage re-
duction of pollution load, considering several treatment strategies.
Exhibit II-2 from Bramer presents the above relationships based
on the benefit and cost estimates derived in the study. Primary
and secondary pollution abatement measures represent 40 and 85
percent reduction in effluent loads respectively. The figure is
illustrative of the basic relationships and demonstrates the func-
tional relationship between costs, benefits and degree of pollution
abatement.
It is interesting to note that the costs of pollution abatement
are greater than benefits derived at all points. The estimated
annual benefits associated with primary and secondary abatement
measures were 76.0 and 86.5 percent of the costs respectively.
This is even more significant when it is realized that one benefit--
recreation benefits emanating from effluent removal--accounted
for approximately 78 and 74 percent of the possible cost reductions
effected by primary and secondary treatment level respectively.
This takes on even greater significance when it is realized that
complex substitution effects were not taken into account, i. e.,
the recreational benefit figure derived is based solely on the
36
-------
Exhibit II-1. Benefits of pollution abatement measures in the Ohio
River Valley in the various uses of the surface waters
Reductions in Costs in 1958 $
Water Use Primary Secondary
Municipal Water Supplies
Domestic Use
Industrial Use
Thermal-electric Power
Navigation
Recreation
Hydroelectric Power
Commercial Fishing
Esthetic Enjoyment
$ 2,657,000
6,456,000
5,174,000
1,941,000
2,300,000
80,000,000
30,000
80,000
4,300,000
$ 5,315,000
IE, 912, 000
10,347,000
3,882,000
4,600,000
120,000,000
30,000
121,000
4,300,000
Totals $102,938,000 $161,507,000
Source: H. C. Bramer, The Economic Aspects of the Water Pollu-
tion Abatement Program in the Ohio River Valley, p. 134.
37
-------
Coats leso
Imputtid
Tntcruut
Dcnefltt) Lean lVjcn.-atlorwl usoo
60 00
Induction of Pollution Load (per cent)
100
Exhibit U.-2* Annual Costs and Benefits of Water Pollution Abate-
ment Measures.
Source: H. C. Bramer, The Economic Aspects of the Water Pollution
Abatement Program in the Ohio River Valley, p. 145.
38
-------
increase in water based recreational activity without considering
possible interaction between other nonwater based recreational
expenditures. It must also be pointed out that the recreational
benefits are also the most difficult to estimate due to data availa-
bility and other intangible considerations that are encountered.
A slight digression is perhaps in order at this time in that
the substitution concept will reoccur at various points in later
discussions. As was stated at the beginning of this chapter, the
objective of environmental protection policies is to facilitate the
maximization of net social welfare. The adoption of this objective
dictates that the substitution phenomenon enter the analysis. The
true impact of water quality degradation on recreation is not simply
the total change in water based recreational expenditure in that
there are many close substitutes to water based recreational activity.
that also produce or yield satisfaction. As water quality deteriorates
people shift out of water based recreational activities and into other
recreational activities. It is the net change in recreational expen-
ditures that must be considered. The substitution phenomenon exist
for all water quality associated impacts but is considered to be most
important when considering recreation benefits.
The precise results obtained if substitution effects were considered
is unknown, however, the direction of change is certain. The in-
clusion of the substitution effect will lower--and it is further hypothe-
sized that it will substantially lower--the above mentioned benefit
estimates. As a result, the benefit cost ratio may well be sub-
stantially less than was estimated by Bramer.
An extension of Bramer's study can be found in a master's
thesis by J. Matson ( 2 ). The same basic technique was applied
to the Maumee River. Estimates of annual benefits and costs of pollution
abatement in this sub-basin produced a benefit cost ratio of 0. 96 at
approximately 93 percent removal of dissolved organic matter. Exhibit
II-3 presents the benefit and cost functions estimated by Matson.
It is expedient to make several observations and raise
several other questions at this juncture.
39
-------
0]
lH
n)
t-H
• — I
o
Q
"8
en
d
O
o w
u CQ
g
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10-
0
O
Annual Costs
V V Annual Benefits
80
84
88
92
100
BOD REMOVAL (Percent)
Exhibit II-3. Effect of degree of removal of dissolved organic
matter from effluents on annual costs and economic
benefits due to pollution abatement in the Maumee
River Basin.
Source: Matson, Jack V., Cost of Industrial and Municipal Water
Pollution Abatement in the Maumee River Basin, Thesis
University of Toledo, January, 1968, p. 44.
40
-------
1. Both studies have established the benefits and costs of
pollution abatement based on numerous beneficial uses
relating both benefits and costs to percentage reduction
in municipal and industrial point source effluent dis-
charges. Surface water quality resulting from pollu-
tion abatement standards depends not only on point
source effluents discharge but also on assimilative
capacity, area influent loads and natural and man-made
non-point pollutants, i.e. , a 50 percent reduction in
effluent discharges does not result in a 50 percent
reduction in surface water effluent loads. In other
words the benefit and cost curves derived are applicable
to only one point on the water quality spectrum given that
all of the above factors are constant. If, however, any of
the above factors change, an entirely different net benefit
configuration would result if beneficial use is indeed im-
pacted by quality of water utilized.
2. The failure to consider substitution effects reduces
the credibility of resulting estimates if the objective
is to ascertain the true social net benefits of pollu-
tion abatement.
3. How accurate are the data and how much reliance can
be placed in water pollution abatement benefit cost
ratios or functions when one single benefit component,
i.e. , recreational expenditures, comprises such a
large percentage of the total benefits. This is especially
true when the benefit is as elusive to measure as is water
quality associated recreational benefits. It is not our pur-
pose here to question the approach or the results but to
merely point out that those wishing to cast doubt or dis-
credit the results of studies similar to the above could
perhaps do so with little effort. The wisdom of attempting
to justify expenditures on such a vital and essential area
as water pollution abatement control must therefore be
grounded on a much more solid foundation.
4. The generalization of these studies to acquire national
water quality associated benefit and cost functions may
be questioned for a variety of reasons. First, the Ohio
river basin is not representative of many of the nations
surface water bodies; second, the estimation technique
41
-------
used to assess several of the benefits must be con-
sidered rough approximation only; third, a more com-
plete assessment of non-point pollution sources and
loads must be completed; fourth, the conversion from
percent of treatment to resulting surface water quality
must be refined; and fifth, a more complete assessment
of prevailing treatment strategies and the incremental
benefits and costs associated with imposition of addi-
tional treatment must be considered.
In all fairness to the above authors, it must be emphasized
that their intent was to show that a substantial portion of the cost
of pollution abatement is not lost but is returned to society through
the benefits accrued as water quality improves. This has been ac-
complished in the above studies by relating benefits and costs to
percent of effluent removal. It must be recognized, however, that
the estimation of total net social benefits emanating from water
pollution abatement is quite another matter.
It does appear that there may well be sufficient reason
for opposing the extension of the above studies to acquire national
water quality associated benefit and cost estimates and functions
without further refinement. The above studies were tailored ex-
plicitly for a specified geographical area thereby permitting many
simplifications that can not be ignored if the goal is to acquire
national water quality estimates.
D. Required Extensions
One alternative in the search for national water quality
associated benefit and cost estimates and functions is to utilize
the same basic technique incorporated in Bramer's study but to
extend and supplement the procedures to eliminate some of the
basic limitations. One approach is to establish water quality
associated benefits and costs as a function of water quality as
opposed to percentage reduction in effluent loads. This is de-
sirable in that the critical objective, a target variable, is water
42
-------
quality as opposed to reduction in effluent discharges which is
meaningless without further knowledge of prevailing area water
quality, relative importance of natural non-point pollutants and
the resulting surface water quality. The following material will
briefly discuss some of the major considerations that are required
to estimate water quality associated benefits and costs as a function
of water quality. The major considerations and procedures are
discussed below with the details reserved for later chapters.
Costs of Pollution Abatement
The selection of appropriate pollution abatement measures
must proceed on an individual treatment strategy basis. One type
of treatment strategy may successfully eliminate or substantially
reduce the concentration of one pollutant while it is totally ineffec-
tive in the removal of other pollutants. The cost of pollution abate-
ment must therefore proceed on a strategy by strategy basis. For
example, the use of computerized techniques have enabled the costing
of 35 treatment strategies presented in Exhibit II-4. The cost of
pollution abatement as a function of percent treatment (treatment
strategy) is presented in Exhibit II-5, including only a representative
sample of treatment strategies.
The eleven treatment strategies listed below are frequently
used industrial water treatment processes. The costs of these
strategies has been estimated by the Environmental Protection
Agency in The Economics of Clean Water. ( 3 )
1. Oil separation
2. Equalization
3. Coagulation
4. Neutralization
5. Flotation
6. Sedimentation
7. Aeration
8. Biological stabilization
9. Chlorination
10. Evaporation
11. Incineration
43
-------
Exhibit II-4. Treatment processes that can be costed by the waste-
water treatment plant cost estimating program
Raw Sewage Pumping
Preliminary Treatment (Grit Removal, Flow Measurement)
Preliminary Treatment (Grit Removal, Flow Measurement, Screening)
Primary Sedimentation (Single Basin)
Primary Sedimentation (Multiple Basin)
Primary Sludge Pumping
Aeration Basin Structure
Aeration Diffused Air
Mechanical Aeration Equipment
Flocsillator
Trickling Filter
Intermediate Pumping
Final or Intermediate Sedimentation (Single Basin)
Final or Intermediate Sedimentation (Multiple Basin)
Recirculation Pumping
Stabilization Ponds
Sludge Thickener
Anaerobic Digestion and Building
Aerobic Digestion
S3.udge Holding Tanks
Vacuum Filtratioif (Landfill Disposal of Sludge)
Vacuum Filtration (Incineration Disposal of Sludge)
Centrifugation
Sludge Drying Beds
Sludge Lagoons
Multiple Hearth Incineration
Fluidized Bed Incineration
Chlorination Building and Equipment
Chlorination Contact Basin
Administrative and Laboratory
Garage and Shop
Yardwork
Laboratory - Activated Sludge
Laboratory - Trickling Filter
Laboratory - Primary Plant
Source: R. G. Eilers and Robert Smith, "Wastewater Treatment
Plant Cost Estimating Program, " Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Water Quality Office, Advanced Waste
Treatment Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, April,
1971.
44
-------
Exhibit II-5. Cost of treatment and degree of control
(by treatment strategy).
st of
.lution
itement
12 34 56 Degree of Control
(By treatment strategy)
Case 1. Primary treatment only
Case 2. Primary treatment plus secondary (biological) treatment.
Case 3. Primary treatment, secondary treatment, plus chlorination
of effluent.
Case 4. Primary treatment, secondary treatment, chlorination,
plus phosphate removal (lime coagulation, flocculation,
settling, recarbonation and filtration).
Case 5. Primary treatment, secondary treatment, phosphate re-
moval, chlorination, plus nitrogen removal (ammonia
stripping).
Case 6. Primary treatment, secondary treatment, phosphate re-
moval, nitrogen removal, chlorination plus activated
carbon absorption.
45
-------
The inclusion of a sufficiently large number of treatment
processes will result in a "smooth" continuous functional relation-
ship. Realistically, however, there would be a range of cost figures
for each strategy considered because of variations in size, efficiency
and a variety of spatial economic and natural conditions. The function
in Exhibit II-5 would therefore depict the average cost of pollution
abatement. Associated with the average cost curve would be both
an upper and a lower cost boundry.
This relationship--cost by treatment strategy--must be
extended to be meaningful. Water quality associated benefits
are functions of priority surface water quality and must be in some
way compared with costs of pollution abatement if a significant
management tool is to be developed. The relationship depicted in
Exhibit II-5 must, therefore, be extended. The relationship that is
required is to establish the cost of pollution abatement as a function
of water quality rather than degree of control or percent treatment.
Although difficult to acquire or formulate, such a transfer-
mation is essential. The above mentioned Bramer study implicitly
assumes"some" unspecified relationship between treatment strategy
or percent effluent removal and resulting surface water quality. With-
out the transformation—either implicit or explicit--it is impossible
to determine the benefits to be gained from the inauguration of pollu-
tion abatement standards. The benefits in the Bramer approach are cost
reductions and increased recreational water usage resulting from pollu-
tion abatement. It is therefore essential to know the relationship between
various treatment strategies and resulting water quality improvement.
The required relationship is not easily ascertained in that the removal
of a certain percentage of effluent or pollution load by point pollution
source does not result in the same percentage reduction in effluents
in surface water bodies. The interaction of nonpoint pollution sources
and assimilative capacity complicates the problem and requires making
the relationship between percent treatment or percent effluent removal
at discharge points and resulting water quality explicit rather than im-
plicit. For example, in some basins it is not inconceivable that a 100
percent reduction in point source pollutants would result in zero benefits
due to the overwhelming importance of nonpoint pollutant sources.
Knowledge of the influent and effluent load, assimilative capacity,
treatment efficiency and concentration and distribution of nonpoint
pollution sources--both man-made and natural--is required to establish
such a relationship.
The need for this required relationship has been recognized
by the Environmental Protection Agency in The Economics of Clean
Water as is indicated by the following material:
46
-------
The pollution source allocation is intended to pro-
duce a picture of the relative contributions of var-
ious activities that are pollution sources (note that
not all activities or waste discharges necessarily
result in pollution, as defined) to the situation re-
flected in the index. Previous efforts to establish
such a ranking were hindered by a lack of corres-
pondence of source contributions with geographically
unique indicators of the resulting stream pollution
and its effects. In addition to offering progress to
the goal of associating discharges with pollution im-
pacts, the present approach provides a means of un-
ambiguously aggregating measures of source contri-
butions to meet higher level planning information
needs.( 4)
For conceptual purposes the above transformation function
is hypothesized in Exhibit II-6.
It must be recognized that as the influent and effluent
loads or treatment efficiencies change, the transformation
function would also be altered. However, once the transfor-
mation function is established, it enables the conversion of cost
of pollution abatement as a function of percent of treatment to
cost of pollution abatement as a function of water quality.
Benefits of Pollution Abatement
The benefits to be derived from pollution abatement are
in the realm of cost and damage reductions as well as increases
in water related activities, i. e. , shifting demand as a result of
water quality enhancement. As water quality deteriorates, dam-
ages and costs are incur red--damages to tangible and intangible
assets, reduced efficiency, additional production costs to on-going
activities and reduced potential benefits emanating from foregone
activities. The last economic cost of pollution is the opportunity
cost associated with water quality deterioration. (The term pollu-
tion as used herein refers to the use of surface waters for waste
disposal to the extent that the resulting water quality is less than
natural water quality would be in the absence of such practices.)
All of these economic costs must be uniquely associated with
specific water quality measures.
47
-------
Exhibit II-6. Water quality and percent treatment
Water
Quality
Charac-
teristic
Degree of Control
48
-------
The first category--additional production costs and re-
duced efficiency of productive inputs--is perhaps the easiest to
visualize. One of the major determinants of the value of water
is its contribution as a productive input. In general this is the
sole determinant of the value of water — if one includes both pro-
ductive uses and non-productive uses such as esthetic appreci-
ation. As the presence of foreign substances increase in concen-
tration, the efficiency of the productive input is reduced. If the
particular pollutant can be easily removed by conventional treat-
ment techniques, the inherent qualities of water can be restored.
If not the result is reduced efficiency of a productive input. In
either case the result is the same—increased cost either because
of increased preuse treatment or reduced efficiency. There is,
therefore, a positive relationship between value of water in pro-
ductive processes and water quality and an inverse relationship
between production costs and water quality.
The same type of relationship exists between water quality
and water quality induced damages. Hardness, corrosion, sedi-
mentation and numerous other pollutants are the source of large
amounts of physical damages to productive, nonproductive, natural
or man-made assets.
The last pollution cost category is the opportunity cost of
foregone activity as a result of water pollution. These are not
damages or increased production costs to on-going activities but
rather the opportunity cost of potential activities that must be
foregone because of environmental degradation. These opportunity
costs as well as all of the above mentioned costs also have an in-
verse relationship to water quality.
These relationships--economic costs of pollution--are
depicted in Exhibit II-7. The abscissa of the graph is a composite
water quality measure with the zero coordinate representing the
area water quality that would prevail in the total absence of con-
trol. The right hand point where the total cost curve intersects
the horizontal axis would represent the prevailing water quality
if all pollutants other than natural pollutants were eliminated.
At this point the composite economic cost of pollution curve would
be zero, since by definition pollution (as defined herein) is not
present. The height of the curve at any water quality to the left
of the natural water quality would represent the economic costs of
pollution. By considering numerous beneficial uses with varying
damage thresholds the smooth curves depicted in Exhibit II-7 would
result from the vertical summation of individual component cost
curves.
49
-------
Exhibit II-7. Economic costs of pollution
Total Economic Costs of Pollution
Opportunity Costs
Damage Costs
•Reduced efficiency and
increased production costs
Water Quality Characteristics
50
-------
The precise relationship and magnitude of these economic
costs of pollution are presently unknown but it is not unrealistic
to hypothesize the relationship as portrayed.
The construction of the composite economic cost of pollution
function would have to proceed on a beneficial use by specific pollu-
tant basis for a specific geographical area recognizing the area
water use and production specialties and other area and economic
characteristics. As water quality is improved, the benefits de-
rived are in the avoidance of a portion of the above mentioned costs
and damages. Alternatively, if flexible abatement standards are
imposed with the intent of maintaining a stable water quality over
time, the economic gain is the potential damages or costs that
would be avoided by further water quality degradation. The
damage and cost avoidance or benefit function is depicted in
Exhibit II-8.
The required comparability of benefits and costs is realized--
benefits (cost and damage avoidance) and cost of pollution abatement,
are both a function of water quality--thereby instilling some economic
meaning to otherwise sterile relationships. While the above modifi-
cation and extensions have perhaps filled some of the voids in the
typical benefit cost approaches to water quality management, there
are several observations that are'perhaps in order at this time.
1. The objective--perhaps secondary objective—of estab-
lising a method capable of ascertaining an optimal area
water quality has been realized by establishing benefits
and costs as a function of water quality as opposed to
degree of treatment.
2. The difficulties encountered in estimating indirect,
intangible benefits have not, in anyway, been diminished.
Such benefits must be calculated if a benefit cost ratio
close to unity is to be realized.
3. The procedure must still be applied to many individual
areas due to the spatial variation of natural, physical
and economic characteristics and can not be satisfactorily
generalized.
51
-------
Exhibit II-8. Total water quality benefits
Total
Benefits
Zero Control
100 Percent
Control
Water Quality Characteristics
52
-------
Now that the benefit cost approach has been reviewed and
refined, it is perhaps expedient to embark on a brief evaluation
procedure to ascertain if the above approach will produce socially
optimal results. It is useful to recall that Phase I concluded that
benefit cost analysis is not an appropriate procedure to be used
in evaluating the impacts of water quality degradation. This con-
clusion was based on a general equilibrium versus partial equili-
brium approach and is forcefully conveyed by the following question:
When a public investment program results in major
structural changes in the national economy or some
regional economy, and when, as a consequence, sig-
nificant changes occur in the price structure, benefit
cost analyses is not applicable. ( 5 )
Given the previously emphasized point that general equilibrium
analysis has not been developed to an implementational stage, partial
equilibrium techniques must be utilized as a first approximation to the
problem. The question that arises is that now that we have been com-
mitted to partial equilibrium analysis (duly recognizing the limitations
of partial analysis), how can the problem best be formulated? Is
the best framework benefit cost analysis? Is benefit cost analysis
even applicable? Are there other methods that are perhaps better
suited to the problem at hand?
To successfully answer these problems, a few benefit cost
conventions must be recognized. T.he first convention is that the
objective of benefit cost analysis is to assist in achieving economic
efficiency or maximization of net social welfare. ( 6 ) The second
convention is that the feasibility of the proposed investment be eval-
uated on the basis of the estimated net benefits. "The benefit cost
criterion dictates that the investment program be chosen which maxi-
mizes net benefits, subject to the constraint that net benefits are
positive." ( 7 ) The second convention clearly indicates that the
normal usage of benefit cost analysis as described by the above
references does not normally allow for the maximization of net
negative benefits or minimization of net costs even in the event
of investment projects involves numerous intangible and unquanti-
fiable benefits that can not be assessed.
53
-------
The question of whether actual benefits exceed cost becomes
rather academic. Many contend that if all intangible benefits were
accurately calculated, the benefits of water quality enhancement would
greatly exceed the costs of water pollution abatement. This is purely
academic in that no one has yet been able to develop a satisfactory
benefit estimation technique. "While early results of recreation
evaluation studies suggest that such analyses can be successfully
done in certain instances and we can expect in the future they will
provide us with usable damage functions, routine detailed measure-
ment of recreational damage is not now possible." ( 8 ) Is benefit
cost--given the state-of-the-arts of benefit estimation--an adequate
analytical technique applicable to the task at hand? If benefit esti-
mation is not capable of accurately assessing public preferences, then
alternative techniques should be explored, and secondly to briefly
hypothesize on the true social preferences. The following items and/or
excerpts from summaries of previous studies shed some light on
whether one can realistically expect estimated water quality assoc-
iated benefits to exceed pollution abatement costs.
1. Bramer estimated a benefit cost ratio of 0.85 for the
Ohio River Basin.
2. Matson estimated a benefit cost ratio of 0.96 for the
Maumee River.
3. "Several studies have been models of ingenuity in using
limited data and modelling or similating effects on in-
dustry operations. Some studies are available for the
petroleum refining, fruit and vegetable canning, thermal
power, and beet sugar industries. In all of these in-
stances, industrial costs turn out to be surprisingly
insensitive to intake water quality within comparatively
wide ranges--especially in regard to aspects of quality
that are usually influenced by prior uses and discharge
of effluents." ( 9 )
4. "The situation is surprisingly similar for municipal
water supplies. Much of what has been said about the
need for high water quality supplies as a basis for
preparation of potable water is more .the product of
emotion than of logic. " (10 )
54
-------
5. "Poor quality water does impose extra costs on munic-
ipal water systems but—except in cases of toxic or
evil-tasting substances--use by municipalities ordinarily
cannot justify high levels of waste effluent control." (11)
6. "The limited evidence from the studies and analysis
discussed above leads to the virtually inescapable con-
clusion that high water quality rmist be justified pri-
marily on aesthetic and recreational grounds, if it is
to be justified at all. This conclusion is reinforced
by the results of the Delaware estuary study." (12)
7. "The benefits of raw water quality improvement which
could be identified as accruing to municipal and indus-
trial water users were very small compared with the
cost of improvement. " (13)
8. "The annual value of the estimated loss due to shifts
in the demand for angling in Yaquina Bay amounted
to about $63,000. This is less than the capital cost
(but excluding annual operating costs) of a basic sewage
treatment plant for a comparatively small city." (14)
9. Preliminary estimates of water quality associated
health impacts suggests that an annual rate of only 1. 1
water borne illnesses per 100,000 population can be di-
rectly attributed to surface water quality degradation. (15)
10. Viral infectious hepatitis can be transmitted by water
routes, although this is rare. (16)
11. Several studies indicate that untreated groundwater and
not surface water has been the most frequent cause of
recent gastro-enteritis and diarrhea and not surface
water degradation. (17)
12. Preliminary estimates of domestic damages resulting
from water of questionable quality indicates that the
private wells are the major source of such damages.
A large portion of the remainder of the damages that
are attributable to surface water impairment are the
result of hardness and mineralization that are present
in varying degrees in water in its native state. Removal
of such pollutants would require extensive and perhaps
unreasonable treatment costs.
55
-------
13. Most of the previous studies have been in areas that
can not be considered typical of the nation as a whole
such as the Delaware estuary, Potomac River, Ohio
River or the Miami Basin which are highly industralized
or population centers that already face severe water
quality problems. These area studies result in signi-
ficant benefit estimates.
14. Very few if any of the above studies have considered
substitution effects which would further reduce the
national water quality associated benefits. (On the
other hand, neither have most studies considered all
types of benefits expected.)
The above items and excerpts indicate that health, production,
and municipal users can not be considered to be the source of large
benefits of water quality improvement. It therefore appears that the
only way pollution abatement measures can be justified in a benefit
cost framework is through the accurate assessment of recreation
and esthetic benefits--which is not possible at the present time. The
use of benefit cost analysis as a water quality management tool can not
on the basis of the above excerpts, be expected to result in positive
national net benefits for the following reasons:
1. Inability to accurately measure and assess intangible
and indirect benefits.
2. Other least cost techniques such as preuse chlorina-
tion effectively reduce many of the adverse water
quality associated impacts.
3. Consideration of substitution effects will substantially
reduce a significant portion of the total water quality
associated impacts.
4. The benefits, as normally defined, are not of the magni-
tude as frequently hypothesized.
The question that arises is in reference to how the true
social objectives can best be served. If the public decision
would be to inaugurate pollution abatement investment even if
the benefit cost ratio is less than unity then we can conclude that
56
-------
benefit cost analysis is not appropriate perhaps for the reason
that we can not accurately assess or assign values to intangible
benefits and public preferences in general. (18) Why then must the
water quality management problem be cast in a benefit cost frame-
work and is there an alternative that circumvents the undesirable
features of this type of analysis? In addition, there may be other
reasons why alternative methods may be preferred.
E. An Alternative Approach
By couching the water quality management in an alternative con-
ceptual framework, some of the difficulties can be avoided. This
setting is a cost minimization approach where costs include both
treatment costs and damage costs, e.g., damages, efficiency
costs and opportunity costs. This is desirable for several reasons
some of which are listed below:
1. As is stated in Managing Water Quality; Economics,
Technology, Institutions^by Kneese and Bower, "cost
minimization . . . calls attention to the fact that water
quality management is essentially a matter of cost
avoidance."
2. It also calls attention to and assists in deriving an
optimum result in that it minimizes the overall costs
associated with waste disposal activity.
3. Since the primary source of the pollution problem stems
from externalities or avoidance of on-site costs, the
proper approach is to consider and minimize all costs
(both on-site and off-site costs). This is a significant
step in the internalization of external costs.
4. Certain natural resources are considered common
property resources belonging to the society in general.
The use of these resources as disposal system results
in a cost savings to producers but more importantly a
value reduction or a cost to society in general. There
seems to be a basic inconsistency or incongruency
associated with inflicting damage to a publicly owned
common property resource and subsequently calling the
57
-------
results of corrective measures a social benefit and
further basing the feasibility of these corrective
measures on highly questionable benefit estimates.
This benefit misnomer and the resulting temptation
of using a highly structured benefit cost framework
which may not be capable of producing socially optimal
results is eliminated by adopting a cost minimization
approach.
5. The use of benefit cost analysis inevitably results in
comparing derived water quality associated benefit
cost ratio with benefit cost ratios derived for other
proposed public investment projects. In view of the
fact that an accurate assessment of water quality
associated benefits can not be achieved at the present
time and the public desires pollution abatement mea-
sures this may not be desirable in that it is quite likely
that the derived water quality associated benefit cost
ratios will be relatively low and may never be of suf-
ficient relative magnitude to justify additional pollu-
tion abatement investment. It is therefore desirable to
disassociate pollution abatement programs from other
possible public investment projects by recognizing the
fact that pollution abatement programs are necessary
and seek out least cost methods of minimizing the total
costs of waste disposal associated with producing a given
quantity of goods.
6. The last point--while very subjective and opinionated--
is that there may be less reluctance to include estimates
of intangible and somewhat uncertain pollution impacts
in a least cost framework than in the standard benefit
cost framework.
In summary, the above items indicate some advantages to
be gained by formulating the problem in a cost minimization frame-
work. This framework is easier to conceptualize and therefore has
considerable merit. If the public desires pollution abatement meas-
ures even at some material sacrifice let us recognize this desire
and formulate the problem so as to minimize the problem of total
waste disposal.
58
-------
The construction of the total cost of pollution function must
consider both on-site and off-site disposal costs. The off-site
(economic costs of pollution) costs are the economic costs of
pollution that vary inversely with the level of water quality. In
the total absence of control, the economic costs of pollution are
at a maximum and alternatively at the level of total control, the
economic costs of pollution are zero as portrayed earlier in
Exhibit II-7. The second component of total social cost of pollu-
tion is the cost of pollution abatement as presented earlier in
Exhibit II-5. These components and the corresponding total cost
curve are depicted in Exhibit II-8. The social objective can be
maximized by selecting the water quality level which minimizes the
total waste disposal cost such as point A in Exhibit II-9.
The expressed preference for the cost minimization approach
places the problem in its proper conceptual setting but does not in
any way complicate or add to the required estimation problems.
The economic cost of pollution must be established in both the
cost minimization and the benefit cost framework. The costs of
pollution abatement must also be established regardless of the
analytical framework. The transformation function relating degree
of treatment and resulting water quality must be considered in both
procedures. The only difference is in the way one views and inter-
prets the final results. Since the cost minimization procedure is
preferred, the terminology from this point on will reflect this pre-
ference (the benefit associated with water quality enhancement are
properly referred to as reductions in the economic costs of pollution),
Before proceeding to the following chapters it must again
be emphasized that as long as only partial estimates of the economic
cost of pollution are available any analytical framework will be
deficient in deriving socially optimum results. The framework that
approaches the problem in the most straight-forward manner con-
sistent with the nature of the problem is desired however. In this
regard cost minimization is preferred.
The following sections are devoted to a further discussion
of the estimation procedures and techniques that are required to
establish the above cost curves. Since the estimation procedures
are essentially the same as would be required in a benefit cost
framework, Sections III and IV are rather brief and general.
Section V does, however, discuss at some length required exten-
sions that have not been as of this time presented in water quality
management literature.
59
-------
Exhibit II-9. Total cost of waste disposal.
Total
Cost of
Pollu-
tion
Total cost
Economic cost of
pollution abatement
Economic cost of pollution
Water Quality Characteristics
60
-------
Footnotes
(1) Bramer, H. C., "The Economic Aspects of the Water Pollu-
tion Abatement Program in the Ohio^River Valley," Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Fittsburg, I960.
(2) Mat son, J., Cost of Industrial and Municipal Water Pollution
Abatement ir^the Maumee River Basin, Master's Thesis,
University of Toledo, 1968.
(3) Environmental Protection Agency, "The Economics of Clean
Water,", 1972.
(4) Ibid. , Environmental Protection Agency, 1972.
(5) Lind, R. C., ''Benefit-Cost Analysis: A Criterion for Social
Investment," Campbell and Sylvester (eds.) Water Resources
Management and Public Policy, University of Washington Press,
1968.
(6) Ibid. . R. C. Lind
(7) Ibid. , R. C. Lind
(8) Kneese, A. V. and B. T. Bower, Managing Water Quality:
Economics, Technology, Institutions, Resources for the
Future, John Hopkins Press, 1968.
(9) Ibid., Kneese and Bower.
(10) Ibid. , Kneese and Bower.
(11) Ibid. , Kneese and Bower.
(12) Ibid. , Kneese and Bower.
(13) Ibid., Kneese and Bower.
(14) Ibid. , Kneese and Bower.
(15) Weibel, S. R., et al., Water Borne — Disease Outbreaks, 1946-
1960, Journal of the American Water Works Association, 1964.
61
-------
(16) Wenk, V. D. , A Technology As^e^smentJMethodology, Water
Pollution: Domestic Wastes, The Mitre Corporation, 1971.
(17) Ibid. , Wenk.
(18) We feel that there is substantial evidence which indicates
that the public indeed desires increased environmental
protection and is willing to perhaps make some material
sacrifices to achieve this end. If the state of the knowledge
can not accurately measure this public desire and the public
is willing to make a material sacrifice then it is a mistake
to utilize benefit cost analysis as a decision making criterion.
(19) Op. cit. , Kneese and Bower.
62
-------
SEC TION III
ECONOMIC COST OF POLLUTION
A. Multidimens tonality
The successful estimation of the composite economic cost
of pollution function that was discussed in the previous chapter can
be achieved only by disaggregating the problem into manageable seg-
ments. The multidimensionality of the problem prohibits tackling
the problem in its entirety without further simplification. The com-
posite function can be constructed only by considering the individual
components. In effect this requires disaggregation on at least three
levels, i.e., specific beneficial uses, specific pollutants and a
geographical delineation. The purpose herein is to briefly consider
the characteristics of the individual economic cost of pollution com-
ponents, and secondly, to elaborate on the procedure required to
estimate individual pollution costs and finally to further discuss a
meaningful aggregation scheme so that the desired national estimates
can be derived, i. e. , aggregation of individual benefits to derive
composite area costs of pollution functions and aggregation of com-
posite area costs of pollution functions to achieve national estimates
and functions.
B. Beneficial Use Classification
The cost of pollution is incurred or borne by a variety
of water users--including both tangible and intangible water uses.
The economic costs of pollution are therefore the damages, ef-
ficiency reductions, process changes, additional expenses incurred
and the opportunity costs that are imposed on a variety of beneficial
uses. The most logical method of assessing the economic costs of
pollution is therefore to consider each of these uses to estimate
the economic cost of water quality degradation by user.
A variety of taxonomies have been used in delineating uses
with each scheme tailored to best serve and facilitate the immediate
objectives at hand. The scheme adopted in the state-of-the-art review
considered four broad beneficial use areas--health, production, esthet-
ics and ecology. While this scheme does not succeed in establishing
completely unique categories totally absent of interdependence, it does
successfully isolate major beneficial uses under separate headings or
divisions. Health includes all human health water quality associated
impacts. Production includes all industrial, municipal and domestic
63
-------
water usage. Esthetics includes all esthetic considerations that are
directly or indirectly associated with water usage while ecological
considerations include all natural water uses that directly or in-
directly effect a variety of natural (ecosystem) functions. Each
of these broad groupings can be further divided into many sub-
divisions. Exhibit HI-1 presents a representative listing of bene-
ficial uses and the water quality impacts that can be associated with
each beneficial use.
Each of these beneficial uses depend on and use water in a
variety of specialized ways and only by considering the detrimental
impacts of increased pollutant concentrations on each of these uses
can the true social cost of water quality degradation be ascertained.
C. Economic Costs of Pollution
A delineation of beneficial uses is only the starting point
in that the costs of pollution to each use may consist of various
types of costs. These costs may take the form of damages to
natural or man-made assets, increased production expenses, re-
duced efficiency or increases in opportunity costs. Only by con-
sidering all of the costs of pollution can the true economic cost
of water quality degradation be ascertained. A brief description
of the various types of damages are listed and briefly described
in Exhibit III-2.
Since the economic costs of pollution are dependent on
beneficial use, an aggregate water quality measure is meaningless
in that use is specialized and the cost of pollution incurred emanates
from the presence of specific undesirable water quality constituents,
i.e. , the presence of toxic substances significantly impairs the value
of water used for human consumption but has no conceivable effect
on other water uses such as the production of primary metals. The
potential gain to be realized from belaboring the argument beyond
this point is minimal so in summary it is sufficient to conclude that
the cost of pollution function must by necessity be constructed by
considering numerous uses, various costs and a variety of specific
pollutants. By considering the costs of pollution by specific pollu-
tants and beneficial uses, the most damaging pollutants can be iso-
lated and this in turn is expected to provide further insight into possible
64
-------
Exhibit III-1. Beneficial use classifications and specific impacts
of water pollution
Use Classification
I. Health
II. Production
A. Municipal water use
Domestic water use
Industrial water use
including the following
industrial groups:
Food and Kindred
Products
Textile Mill Products
Lumber
Paper
Chemicals
Petroleum and Coal
Rubber
Leathe r
Stone, Clay and Glass
Primary Metals
Electrical Equipment
Transportation Equipment
Specific Impact
All water quality related diseases.
For a listing of water related diseases
refer to Table I of health section,
Appendix B.
Increased preuse treatment cost as a
result of water quality deterioration,
i.e. , additional expenditure for softening
iron and manganese removal, chlori-
nation, corrosion control, taste and odor
control, and filtration above and beyond
what would be required to utilize water
in its natural state.
Increased use of water softeners, deter-
gents, soaps, increased plumbing costs
(pipes, water heaters, etc.) and in-
creased use of bottled water for drinking
purposes.
Softening, iron and manganese removal,
chlorination, taste and odor control,
and filtration. Reduced heat transfer
rates because of scaling and fouling of
heat transfer surfaces and reduced
equipment life because of corrosion,
and other undesirable impacts stemming
from excessive effluent loads.
65
-------
Exhibit III-1 (continued)
Use Classification
D. Commercial fishing
E.
A gricultural water use
(1) Animal production
(Z) Plant production
F. Navigation water use
Thermal-electric and
hydro-electric power
generation water use
H. Federal installation
I. Transportation
Specific Impact
Decreased fish yield and increased
production costs as a result of water
quality degradation. Increased main-
tenance and repair costs of commercial
vessels and supporting equipment.
Increased animal production costs as
a result of contaminated food supplies,
death and alteration of psychological
function, reduced daily gains and in-
creased cost of health control measures.
Increased production costs due to crop
failures, yield restrictions or marketing
constraints as a result of increased man-
made effluent loads.
Excessive corrosion and maintenance
on all water craft. Channel maintenance
dredging and acid mine damage to navi-
gational support equipment resulting from
excessive effluent flows.
Increased repair maintenance and
damages to power generation equip-
ment, reservoirs and dams as a re-
sult of increased effluent loads.
Impact for federal installation include
increased preuse treatment and increased
physical damages resulting from use of
water possessing undesirable con-
stituents .
Impact for transportation include re-
duced efficiency, damage to equipment
and increased preuse treatment directly
related to man-made pollutants.
66
-------
Exhibit III-l (continued)
Use Classification
J. Other production
III. Esthetic
IV. Ecological
Specific Impact
Other damages, reduced efficiency and
additional expenses incurred to other
production processes not specifically
mentioned above.
Reduced esthetic appreciation, property
value reductions and reduced potential
for travel and reductions in water based
recreational activities and expenditures
as a result of reduced human esthetic
appreciation resulting from undesirable
water quality constituents.
The disruptions of vital life support
cycles and systems resulting in unknown
and unpredictable social, economic and
ecological consequences.
67
-------
Exhibit III-2. Economic costs of pollution
Type
Dama ge s
Increased Production Expenses
and/or Reduced Efficiency
Environmental Risk
Opportunity Costs
Description and Illustration
Physical damages and reduced value of
resources as a result of undesirable water
quality constituents. This includes many
types of damages to a large number of
resources, i. e. , both natural and man-
made, which are directly or indirectly
effected by man-made pollutants.
Many types of preuse production expenses
and/or process changes necessitated by
water quality degradation are illustrative
of this impact. In addition, there are
some water quality variables that cannot
be removed by conventional treatment
strategies or are present in only minor
concentrations that are not treated but
still impair the value of water to some
degree by reducing the efficiency of water
as a productive input.
An indirect, and often times intangible
cost of pollution stems from the uncertain^
of damages which might occur following
environmental degradation. Costs of
avoidance of environmental risk and pre-
cautionary measures are thus economic
costs of pollution.
In addition to the above damages, in-
creased production expenses, efficiency
reductions and risks there are other
economic costs of pollution. These take
the form of opportunities lost or inability
to utilize, develop or appreciate various
natural resources. This loss or perhaps
potential loss is the part of the opportunity
cost of pollution. This category is net of
the other above mentioned economic costs-
It further includes the option and latent
demand concepts.
68
-------
pollution abatement strategies by isolating the major sources and
further dictates the treatment strategy required. Appendix C
presents a variety of important pollutants and groups of pollutants,
the major source of these pollutants, possible damages incurred
from excessive concentrations and treatment required to elim-
inate these pollutants.
The complication that is encountered is that each use
may realistically be dependent on several water quality variables.
For example, water used for contact recreation purposes should
meet several quality requirements--fecal coliform, temperature
clarity, floatable oil, suspended solids and odor requirements.
For this reason multivariate functions may have to be developed
or alternatively simplified function relating economic cost of
pollution to selected key variables may be used as a first approxi-
mation of the functional relationships between cost of pollution
and water quality. Significant inroads have been made in the area
of relating water use requirements to key water quality variables.
A variety of well established critical levels and damage thresholds
have been established and are presented in Appendix D for selected
water uses. These critical levels and damage thresholds will have
to be considered in assessing water quality associated impacts in
that exceeding the critical level or damage threshold will result in
increased costs, increased damages or perhaps complete elimin-
ation of the beneficial use.
Estimation Procedure
The above mentioned multidimensionality, variations in
data availability and data form and variations in functional form
of the hypothesized relationships prohibits prescribing a single
technique applicable to the estimation of all economic costs of
pollution. The estimation procedure must be tailored to the speci-
fic characteristics of individual water quality associated impacts.
The procedure required, regardless of the type of analysis, or
irrespective of the beneficial use under consideration is to ascer-
tain the additional cost incurred as a result of water quality de-
gradation. In many cases this will, in effect, require a complete
analysis of the cost determinants or independent variables affecting
water using activities at several water quality levels. Only by
observing costs and participation rates at several water quality
69
-------
levels can the economic costs of pollution abatement be ascertained.
"Before and after" examples incorporating demand analysis, regres-
sion analysis, option demand, participation rates, percentage reduc-
tions and cost variations are relevant methods, techniques and con-
cepts useful in assessing the economic costs of pollution. The most
descriptive method of portraying such cost estimation procedures is
to do so by using several illustrative examples that have been used in
previous attempts to quantify the economic costs of pollution. The
basic goal of all of these techniques is to delineate the independent
variables affecting water usage so as to allocate the portion of total
costs that can be correctly associated with water quality degradation.
It would be desirable to delve into specific techniques that might be
utilized in Phase III, but until specific areas of further study have been
selected, it is not desirable to devote a large amount of effort to such
tasks. The following discussion is therefore rather general and is
valuable for illustrative purposes only.
Costs of Pollution and Municipal Preuse Water Treatment Costs
The cost of preuse municipal water treatment is determined
by numerous physical and economic spatially dependent variables.
The important municipal preuse treatment independent cost variables
are listed below:
1. Prevailing treatment strategy
2. Capacity of the system
3. Utilization of the system
4. Ownership of the system
5. Regional wage rates
6. Age of the institutions
7. Cost of variable inputs
8. Concentration and type of effluents
Municipal preuse water treatment costs should involve allow-
ances for both man-made point source emissions and natural pollu-
tants which are present in prevailing water sources. The appro-
priate treatment strategy and the consequent cost of pollution
attributable to man-made sources may be derived from a total cost
of treatment relationship as follows. Given the prevailing regional
70
-------
wage rates and the other appropriate spatially dependent exogenous
variables, the cost of preuse municipal treatment strategies in the
absence of manmade pollutants can be ascertained. Incremental
municipal preuee treatment costs that are incurred as a result of
increased effluent loads can justifiably be classified as the economic
costs of pollution. These may take the form of increased operation
and maintenance costs as a result of increased effluent loads or in-
creased capital costs associated with more advanced and sophisti-
cated treatment strategies necessitated by the introduction of man-
made pollutants.
The preuse municipal average cost curve for a given area
is the envelop curve associated with a variety of constituent indi-
vidual cost curves each applicable to specific treatment strategies
required to reduce effluent loads associated with specific water
qualities. The envelop curve and the constituent curves are de-
picted in Exhibit HI-3.
Several observations are in order at this juncture. At some
point in the above hypothesized relationship, the cost of preuse
municipal treatment would reach a minimum, indicating that some
preuse treatment costs would be incurred regardless of the pre-
vailing water quality. Chlorination, filtration and other treatment
processes are essential irrespective of the prevailing water quality.
The reason for this distinction is that the economic cost of pollution
is represented by the portion of the curve above and to the left of
the minimum cost point. For example, if the water quality free of
man-made pollutants is determined to be water quality B in Exhibit
IU-3, the true cost of pollution is the height of the curve at every
point less the quantity BC. The cost of municipal preuse treatment
curve can therefore be converted to an economic cost of pollution
curve simply by shifting the ordinate upward by a distance equal to
the cost of preuse municipal treatment in the absence of man-made
pollutants such as point D in Exhibit III-3.
71
-------
CO
O
U
<0
Exhibit III-3. Economic coat of pollution in reference to
municipal preuae treatment.
3 fl»
*§
+> fl)
0) LI
O o.
O
^H
U IT)
It
0 .H
s§ D
w H
Treatment
Strategy 1
B Water Quality
Characteristics
72
-------
The estimation of the entire function would be desirable
but time consuming task. The required level of effort can be
substantially reduced by considering only two points, one, the
cost of treatment associated with the prevailing water quality and
the second is the costs associated with treating water in its natural
state. For a first approximation, such simplifications are not
unrealistic. The above endeavors are not unrealistic in that cost
data for municipal preuse treatment plants are quite accessible.
Essentially what has been described is a "before and after" example
with the difference being attributed to increased effluent loads and
lower quality of surface water withdrawn.
Estimating Recreation Impacts^of Water Quality Degradation
Other estimates of the economic costs of pollution are also
available in the literature. Few, however, are as straightforward
as the above municipal preuse treatment example. One example of
an attempt to estimate the recreation impacts of pollution is pre-
sented in the well publicized Delaware Estuary Study. ( 1 ) The
estimation procedure incorporated multivariate regression analysis
to isolate the critical variables influencing participation in water
based recreational activities. Exhibit III-4 presents the socio-
economic and locational variables that were used to determine the
important independent factors influencing participation rates in
various water based recreational activities.
From this information recreational probability of participation
equations were formulated. Once the equations were established
appropriate values of the relevant exogenous variables were com-
puted and applied to determine the corresponding value of the de-
pendent variable. This in effect establishes total participants prior to
water quality improvement for the benefit considered. The next step
was to assume that some water quality improvement would subse-
quently enhance the rating of fishing facilities (FPS) from previous
levels to higher levels. With the improvement in the FPS new pro-
bability and usage functions were developed. A comparison of the
usage rates with quality improvement with the previous unimproved
usage rates revealed that a significant increase in usage results
from water quality improvement. This difference is the cost of in-
creased effluent loads. This represents another method of establishing
the costs of pollution--economic costs in the sense of opportunity costs
of foregone usage. There are numerous other examples of previous
73
-------
Exhibit III-4. Recreation participation variables.
Variable Symbol
Age A
Income Y
Sex 5
Education E
Race R
Life cycle L\
L,
Urbanization (belt) U
Occupation O
Region G
Participates in fishing FP
Participates in swimming SP
Participates in boating DP
Water per capita W
Expert rating or swimming facili- SFS
ties in primary sampling unit
Expert rating of fishing facilities FPS
in primary sampling unit
Coastal area presence C
Description
discrete midpoint values of class intervals
discrete midpoint values of class intervals
0 if female
1 if male
1 if grade school highest attainment
2 if high school highest attainment
3 if college highest attainment
0 if non-white
1 if white
0 if no children in household
1 if children in household
0 if no children over 5 years old
1 if children over 5 years old
0 if urban location
1 if suburban or outlying location
0 if blue collar
1 if white collar
0 if Northeast or North Central
1 if West or South
0 if non-participant
1 if participant
0 if non-participant
1 if participant
0 if non-participant
1 if participant
area of sport fishing water per capita by
state, 1960
discrete values of 1 through 5
discrete values of 1 through 5
0 inland area
1 coastline or Great Lakes present
Source: Allen V. Kneese and Stephen C. Smith, (ed.), Water Research
p. 193. '
74
-------
attempts to establish the cost of pollution as a function of water quality.
These include establishing soap and detergent purchases, crop yields,
property value charges, maintenance costs, domestic damages, and
other damages to appropriate water quality levels. Each attempt
must essentially isolate and determine the important cost and usage
independent variables and assess the portion of the total that can be
attributed to increased effluent loads. As was initially stated at the
beginning of this chapter, the precise technique and analytical pro-
cedures incorporated must be tailored to the specific use under con-
sideration. One additional illustration of estimating procedure and
consideration involved in estimating health impacts is presented in
the health section in Appendix D.
D. Aggregation
The problem of aggregation is intrinsic to the construction
of national pollution cost estimates. There are several levels at
which the problem is encountered. First, individual beneficial
use pollution functions are established and must be aggregated to
achieve composite area economic cost of pollution functions. Since
the ordinate or y axis is dollars per unit of water used, dollars
per capita or cost per shoreline mile which can be easily aggregated
into meaningful regional totals if a composite multivariate measure
is depicted on the abscissa.
The second level of aggregation, i.e. , region by region
aggregation of composite functions, must proceed on the same
general basis. The many complications and complexities that
are likely to be encountered in aggregation are recognized but
not developed at this point. A more effective place and time
for such a discussion would be after regional cost estimates
have been established and a better appreciation and understanding
of the aggregation problem is achieved.
75
-------
E. Summary
Many attempts to estimate the economic costs of pollution
to specific beneficial uses are present in the literature.
Each method must be sensitive to the specific characteristics of
the beneficial use under consideration. The estimation of the
national costs associated with pollution must therefore seek out specific
examples and data sources which facilitate and expedite the analysis.
Extreme care must be taken in extending regional estimates to national
estimates in view of the many and diversified regional water use
characteristics and water quality requirements.
76
-------
Footnotes
(1) Kneese, A. V. and Stephen (ed.) Water Research, Resources for
the Future, Inc., John Hopkins Press.
77
-------
SEC TION IV
COST OF POLLUTION ABATEMENT
A. Introduction
Estimating national pollution abatement costs has progressed
to an advanced state relative to the establishment of national benefit
functions. The methodology is well established and little change is
needed. There is, however, substantial need to further extend the
analysis to adequately portray the relationship between pollution
abatement measures and resulting surface water quality. This
extension is the subject of Section V and will not be discussed
here. In an attempt to be complete this brief chapter concerning
the cost of pollution abatement has been included. We shall
first discuss the procedures utilized to establish the cost of pollu-
tion abatement function and secondly, briefly summarize some of the
material from Appendix A.
B. Procedures
The general method of establishing national or regional
pollution abatement functions must proceed by considering indi-
vidual treatment strategies by pollution source. A listing of pos-
sible strategies was presented in S^c^ion II. Unfortunately it is
not possible at the present time to consider or establish a national
pollution abatement function considering all of the treatment strategieg
listed. The alternative is to establish the cost function by constructive
the cost of a few strategies assuming that all pollution sources within
the region or country adopted a given strategy. This procedure is the
technique most frequently used in the partial equilibrium studies
reviewed. Assuming varying treatment strategies presents significant
data and estimation problems with respect to both costs and re-
sulting water quality and will not be pursued further at this point in that
this constitutes a long run objective. The simplifying assumption that
all pollution sources within a given basin adopt standard abatement
measures is realistic in that isolated controls can not be expected
to significantly reduce the total effluent load. This assumption was
adopted by Bramer and justified on the following basis:
78
-------
This type of isolated pollution abatement results
in the correction of local nuisance problems, but
does not improve water quality so as to permit
well-rounded water uses. This was the basis upon
which the State of Ohio exempted its municipalities
on the Ohio River from requirements of the install-
ation of waste treatment facilities until those up-
stream in other states took action. It is on the
same basis that Pennsylvania has not required
treatment facilities on streams subject to acid
mine drainage until a satisfactory solution to this
problem is found. (1)
By adopting similar assumptions and limiting the number
of possible treatment strategies under consideration, the establish-
ment of regional or national pollution abatement functions would be
a relatively routine task. Even though it would be a routine task
it would require an enormous amount of data collection. A similar
task--involving a complete assessment of present and projected
industrial waste treatment strategies--has been recently published
by the Environmental Protection Agency.
In that it has been constantly emphasized throughout this
report that the establishment of cost of pollution abatement functions
does not represent the area of greatest need, we will not belabor the
point further but will briefly recognize several limitations that
currently exist.
C. Limiting Factors
One major limitation is that given present state of the knowledge
constraints, it is difficult, if not impossible, to incorporate nonpoint
pollution costs into such a framework, not because the framework is
deficient but "because estimates of nonpoint pollution load and treatment
costs have not been adequately developed. It is also impossible to
relate cost of pollution abatement to national water quality in that
a meaningful national water quality estimate is not available and is
not meaningful due to the disparity of water quality levels. This
further reinforces previous conclusions that cost estimates are
meaningful only in reference to small hydrological areas in that
present aggregation methods have not been adequately refined.
79
-------
The current state of the knowledge with respect to pollu-
tion abatement costs can best be illustrated by summarizing some
of the information presented in Appendix A.
DA National Pollution Abatement Cost Estimates
From the material presented in Appendix A it is possible,
with only a few extensions , to develop national pollution abatement
cost estimates. The estimates that are developed can not be re-
lated to water quality levels or a variety of treatment strategies
but instead portray the cost of pollution abatement required to
meet current standards. Industrial pollution abatement cost
estimates use in Appendix A are based on estimates provided in
the Economics of Clean Water which estimates the industrial cost
of achieving the equivalent of secondary treatment as indicated by
the following excerpt from the same publication.
What is the cost of wastewater treatment to U.S.
industry assuming that industry must reach the
equivalent of secondary wastewater treatment as
stated in the Water Pollution Control Act. (2)
Adopting the same assumptions for municipal treatment
costs, i.e. , assuming all municipalities achieved the equivalent
of secondary treatment, produced the total cost figures as pre-
sented in Exhibit IV-1. From the material in Exhibit IV-1 it is
possible to develop a preliminary national cost function relating
costs of pollution abatement to the prevailing water standards.
Municipal and industrial water treatment cost for secondary
treatment on an annualized basis would be 3, 880 and 4, 562 million
for 1968 and 1976 respectively. The question that immediately
comes to mind is how do these figures compare with the possible
economic cost reductions that might be realized. Unfortunately,
this can not be determined without first ascertaining the water
quality improvement that would be realized if the equivalent of
secondary treatment were inaugurated. This general topic is
further discussed in Chapter V.
80
-------
00
Exhibit rV-1. Total capital, operating and maintenance costs required to meet current standards
in 1968 and 1976 (1967 dollars expressed in millions)
Municipal
Industrial
Total
1968
Required
capital
16,810
8,966
25,776
1968
Operating
and
maintenance
731
1,320
2,051
1968
Total
annualized
. */
costs _'
3,880
1976
Required
capital
19,382
10,752
30,134
1976
Operating
and
maintenance^
843
1,582
2,425
1976
Total
annualized
costs—
4,562
*/
~ All capital costs were annualized on the basis of 25 years and 5 percent interest.
**/
— The 1976 operating and maintenance figures were derived by applying the proportion of O&M costs
to total capital in 1968 to the total 1976 capital.
-------
Footnotes
(1) Bramer, H. C., The Economic Aspects of Water Pollution
Abatement Program in the Ohio River Valley, " Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, I960.
(2) Environmental Protection Agency, The Economics of Clean
Water, 1972.
82
-------
SEC TION V
ESTIMATING WATER QUALITY AS A FUNCTION
OF POLLUTION CONTROL
The methodology described herein is for estimating pollu-
tion costs as a function of water quality and abatement costs as a
function of degree of pollution control. At first glance, this may
appear to be a trivial discrepancy in terminology. Unfortunately,
that is not the case. If for example, BOD levels in effluent were
reduced by 90 percent during the next five years in a given basin,
the BOD level of the basin's surface water would probably not be
reduced by exactly 90 percent. Water quality must be estimated
as a function of pollution control efforts before meaningful cost
comparisons can be made.
Traditionally, the quality/control relationship has been
implicitly included in the benefit estimates or the cost estimates.
An excellent example of such a methodology is provided by Matson
and Bennett in their study of the Maumee River Basin where both
benefits and costs are estimated as a function of degree of pollu-
tion control (1) (see Exhibit V-l). Although such a technique may
simplify computational requirements and yield comparable benefit
and cost curves, the shortcomings are far more significant. The
physical relationships involved in pollution control processes are
placed in a passive exogenous setting and benefit estimates become
dependent upon the accuracy of quality/control estimates which
are hidden from view. Benefit estimates in such cases can, at
best, be only as good as the quality/control estimates. Also,
this approach requires developing different benefit functions for
areas with different quality/control relationships even if the rele-
vant economic characteristics of the areas are identical. In sum-
mary, such an approach may be acceptable for specific problem or
crisis oriented studies but does not exhibit the flexible character-
istics requisite for a national pollution control study.
EPA has recognized the need for relating pollution loads
to water quality. For example, in describing the relationship
of their classification system for pollution sources and their
pollution index system, they state:
83
-------
o
p
M
C
O
•r4
3
•t-l
s
to £
o w
o «
V Annual Benefits
30 -
zo -
10
100
BOD REMOVAL (Percent)
Exhibit V-l.
Source:
Effect of degree of removal of dissolved organic
matter from effluents on annual costs and economic
benefits due to pollution abatement in the Maumee
River Basin.
Matson, Jack V. and Bennett, GaryF., "Cost of Industrial
and Municipal Waste Treatment in the Maumee River Basin, "
Water-1969, Lawrence K. Cecil (ed.)» Chemical Engineering
Progress Symposium Series, Vol. 65, No. 97, American
Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, 1969.
84
-------
The pollution source allocation is intended to produce
a picture of the relative contributions of various acti-
vities that are pollution sources (note that not all acti-
vities or waste discharges necessarily result in pollu-
tion, as defined) to the situation reflected in the index.
Precious efforts to establish such a ranking were hind-
ered by a lack of correspondence of source contribu-
tions with geographically unique indicators of the re-
sulting stream pollution and its effects. In addition
to offering progress to the goal of associating dis-
charges with pollution impacts, the present approach
provides a means of unambiguously aggregating measures
of source contributions to meet higher level planning
information needs. (2)
Recognizing the necessity for relating water quality to
pollution control levels on a national basis, the literature was
searched for proven methodology. The results of the search
pointed out a crying need for further study in this research area
since published articles which treated the topic in anything more
than casual reference could not be found. If further searches of
the literature were undertaken, the prospects of discovering sig-
nificant references appear dim.
Since quality/control functions are a key determinant
in the analysis set forth herein, and in view of the lack of
acceptable documented approaches, we have undertaken the
development of such a methodology. Our suggested approach
is summarized below, prefaced with general discussions on
measuring water quality, determinants of water quality and
measuring the degree of pollution control.
A. Measuring Water Quality
Water quality is a nebulous term normally used in describing
the abundance of pollutants in a sample of water or the suitability
of a water source for a given use. The former interpretation im-
plies physical, chemical and biological properties while the latter
interpretation includes properties which are more appropriately
termed esthetic qualities.
Hence, one can speak of physical water quality, esthetic
water quality or composite water quality where both physical
85
-------
and esthetic properties are combined. Some commonly used
water quality measurements are listed in Exhibit V-2.
Given a set of water quality measurements, a classification
problem exists in ranking the quality of surface waters. One classi
fication system ranks water as either potable (i.e. , fit for human
consumption) or non-potable. This classification system is based
upon a set of physical, chemical, and biological measures as illus-
trated in Exhibit V-3. Since a large proportion of municipalities
in the U.S. pretreat their water supplies and large amounts of
water are used for purposes other than human consumption, pota-
bility isn't an adequate classification system for this study.
Another classification system is used to 'reflect the degree of-
hardness while still another is tied to the degree of salinity
(Exhibit V-4). Some studies have ranked water quality on the
basis of other singular criterions such as dissolved oxygen and
biochemical oxygen demand. Although these are of interest they
are not adequate for the current study.
In 1968, the National Technical Advisory Committee on
Water Quality Criteria set forth water quality recommendations
for general use classifications (3). Their recommendations could,
in most cases, be interpreted as guidelines for judging water as
suitable or not suitable for a given use. In some instances,
ranges of acceptable quality measurements were defined. Similar
water quality guidelines have been formulated by other agencies
with California's efforts probably being the most notable example.
In 1971, Prati, Pavanello and Pesarin presented a method
for ranking water quality with an index number ranging from 1 to 8
(5). The criteria they proposed are presented,in Exhibit V-5, Un-
fortunately, their system is based solely upon physical consider-
ations .
In January, 1972 Battelle's Columbus Laboratories re-
ported the development of an environmental evaluation system
for water resource planning (6). Developed for the U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation, the system ranks composite environmental qual-
ity on a scale of 0 to 1000. Components and associated weights
for their system are presented in Exhibit V-6. The system seems
to be the most comprehensive environmental quality ranking scheme
developed to date and is currently being further refined in a contract
with the Arizona Department of Economic Planning and Develop-
ment (7).
86
-------
Exhibit V-2. Selected water quality characteristics
Physical Characteristics
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Fecal Coliform bacteria
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Hydrogen-ion concentration (pH)
Inorganic phosphate
Inorganic nitrogen
Inorganic carbon
Temperature
Hardness (as CaCOj)
Specific electric conductance
Radioactivity
Toxic substances (including pesticides)
Turbidity
Color
Oil
Esthetic Characteristics
Taste
Appearance
Odor
Floating materials
Shoreline appearance
Biota
Man-made objects
Human interest
Source: Dee, Norbert, et al., Environmental Evaluation System
for Water Resource Planning, Battelle Columbus Laboratories
for Bureau of Reclamation, U. S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, 1972.
Chow, Ven Te (ed.)» Handbook of ^Applied Hydrology, McGraw-
Hill, New York, 1964.
Todd, David Keith (ed.)» The Water Encyclopedia, Water
Information Center, Port Washington, N. Y.
87
-------
Exhibit V-3. Drinking water standards of the U.S. Public Health
Service, 1962.
A. General Constituents
Recommended limits Mandatory limits
Substance of concentrations, of concentrations
in mg/1 in mg/ 1
Alkyl benzene sulfonate (ABS) 0.5
Arsenic (As) 0.01 0.05
Barium (Ba) -- 1.0
Cadmium (Cd) -- 0.01
Carbon chloroform extract (CCE) 0.2
Chloride (C 1) 250
Chromium (hexavalent) (Cr+°) -- 0.05
Copper (Cu) 1.0
Cyanide (CN) 0.01 0.2
Fluoride (F) * *
Iron (Fe) 0.3
Lead (Pb) -- 0.05
Manganese (Mn) 0.05
Nitrate (NOs)** 45
Phenols 0.001
Selenium (Se) -- 0.01
Silver (Ag) -- 0.05
Sulfate (S04) 250
Total dissolved solids (TDS) 500
Zinc (Zn) 5 --
*See below
**In areas in which the nitrate content of water is known to be in
excess of the listed concentration, the public should be warned
of the potential dangers of using the water for infant feeding.
B. Fluoride
Annual average of maximu
daily air temperatures,
in degrees Fahrenheit
50.
53.
58.
63.
70.
79.
0 -
8 -
4 -
9 -
7 -
3 -
53.
58.
63.
70.
79.
90.
7
3
8
6
2
5
m Recommended control limits -
fluoride concentrations, inmg/1
Lower
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
9
8
8
7
7
6
Optimum
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
2
1
0
9
8
7
Upper
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0.
7
5
3
2
0
8
88
-------
Exhibit V-3 (continued)
C. Radioactivity
Source
Recommended limits,
micromicrocuries per liter
Radium -226
Strontium - 90
Gross beta activity
3
10
1,000
Source: Todd, David Keith (ed.), The Water Encyclopedia, Water
Information Center, Port Washington, N. Y.
89
-------
Exhibit V-4. Classification of water quality according to hardness
and salinity properties.
A. Based on Concentration of Total Dissolved Solids
Name
Concentration of Total Dissolved Solids
parts^ per million
Fresh
Brackish
Salty
Brine
0-1,000
1,000-10,000
10,000-100,000
More than-100,000
B. Based on Hardness
Name
Hardness as CaCO^, Parts
per million
Soft
Moderately hard
Hard
Very hard
0-60
61-120
121-180
More than 180
Source: Todd, David Keith (ed.)t The Water Encyclopedia.
Water Information Center, Port Washington, N.Y.
Davis and DeWiert, Hydrogeology, John Wiley and Sons, 1966.
Anonymous, various publications of the U. S. Geological
Survey, Washington.
90
-------
Exhibit V-5. Assessment of surface water quality by a single index of pollution
Classification of
Condition:
Index of quality:
Quality Characteristic
PH
Dissolved oxygen
BOD (ppm)
COD (ppm)
Permanganate(mgl -0)
(Kubel test)
Suspended solids (ppm)
NH3 (ppm)
NO3 (ppm)
Cl (ppm)
Iron (ppm)
Manganese (ppm)
ABS (ppm)
CCE (ppm)
Excellent
1
6.5-8.0
88-112
1.5
10
2.5
20
0.1
4
50
0. 1
0.05
0.09
1.0
Acceptable
2
6.0-8.4
75-125
3.0
20
5.0
40
0.3
12
150
0.3
0. 17
1.0
2.0
Surface Water Quality
Slightly
Polluted
4
5.0-9.0
50-150
6.0
40
10.0
100
0.9
36
300
0.9
0.5
3.5
4.0
Polluted
8
3.9-10.1
20-200
12.0
80
20.0
278
2.7
108
620
2.7
1.0
8.5
8.0
Heavily
Polluted
> 8
<3.9-2 10. 1
<20->200
> 12.0
>80
> 20.0
>278
> 2.7
>108
>620
5 2.7
> 1.0
> 8.5
> 8.0
Source: Prati, L. , Pavanello, R. and Pesarin, F. , "Assessment of Surface
Water Quality by a Single Index of Pollution," Water Resources Research
(GB), No. 5, pp. 741-51, 1971.
91
-------
Exhibit V-6. Battelle's Environmental Evaluation System
Parameter
Components Importance Units
Ecology 240
Species and Population 140
Terrestrial
Browsers and grazers 14
Crops 14
Natural Vegetation 14
Pest species 14
Upland game bird 14
Aquatic
Commercial fisheries 14
Natural Vegetation 14
Pest species 14
Sport fish 14
Waterfowl 14
Habitats and Communities 100
Terrestrial
Food web index 12
Land use 12
Rare and endangered species 12
Species diversity 14
Aquatic
Food web index 12
Rare and endangered species 12
River characteristics 12
Species diversity 14
Ecosystems
Descriptive only
92
-------
Exhibit V-6 (continued)
Parameter #1
Components Importance Units
Environmental Pollution 402
Water Pollution 318
Basic hydrolic loss 20
BOD 25
Dissolved Oxygen 31
Fecal coliforms 18
Inorganic carbon 22
Inorganic nigrogen 25
Inorganic phosphates 28
Pesticides 16
pH 18
Stream flow variation 28
Temperatures 28
Total dissolved solids 25
Toxic substances 14
Turbidity 20
Air Pollution 52
Carbon monoxide 5
Hydrocarbons 5
Nitrogen Oxides 10
Particulate matter 12
Photochemical oxidants 5
Sulfur oxides 10
Other 5
Land Pollution 28
Land use 14
1
Soil erosion 14
Noise Pollution 4
Noise 4
93
-------
Exhibit V-6 (continued)
Parameter #1
Components Importance Units
Esthetics 153
Land 32
Geologic surface material 6
Relief and topographic character 16
Width and alignment 10
Air 5
Odor and visual 2
Sounds ^
Water 52
Appearance of water 10
Land and water interface 1°
Odors and floating material "
Water surface area 10
Wooded and geologic shoreline 10
Biota 24
Animals - domestic 5
Animals - wild 5
Diversity of vegetation types 9
Variety within vegetation types 5
Man-made objects 10
Man-made objects 10
Composition 30
Composite effect 15
Unique composition 15
94
-------
Exhibit V-6 (continued)
Parameter #1
Components Importance Units
Human Interests 205
Educational/Scientific Packages 48
Archeological 13
Ecological 13
Geological H
Hydro logical H
Historical Packages 55
Architecture and Styles H
Events H
Persons H
Religious and Cultures H
"Western Frontier" n
Cultures 28
Indians 14
Other ethnic groups 7
Religious groups ^
Mood/Atmosphere 37
Awe-inspiration H
Isolation/solitude ^
Mystery 4
"Oneness" with nature H
Life Patterns 37
Employment Opportunities ^3
Housing 13
Social Interaction 11
*1 Total parameter importance units equals 1000.
Source: Dee, Norbert, et al. , Environmental Evaluation System for
Water Resource Planning, Battelle Columbus Laboratories for
Bureau of Reclamation, U. S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, 1972.
95
-------
Another significant water quality classification methodo-
logy is the PDI (pollution prevalence, duration, intensity) system
being utilized by the Environmental Protection Agency (2). The
PDI has the distinct disadvantage of being tied to legal criteria.
If quality is such that damages are occurring to some beneficial
uses but legal criteria are being met, the water apparently is still
rated as high quality. Furthermore, the measurements upon which
the PDI are dependent (Exhibit V-7) are rather arbitrary and may
prove difficult to apply consistently. The relative weights given
to ecological, utilitarian and esthetic aspects of pollution could
be questioned. Even though the PDI has several undesirable
attributes, it is, perhaps, the most widely applied composite
water quality classification system.
Currently, Federal, state and local agencies are operating
thousands of water quality monitoring stations. Results from many
of these stations are recorded in the STORET data retrival system
maintained by the Environmental Protection Agency. It is also
reported that the U.S. Geological Survey maintains a large file
of water quality data. An abundance of water quality data appears
to be available. These data should be sufficient to meet the needs
of physical quality classification systems such as the 8 point system
proposed by Prati, Pavanello and Pesarin but generally fall short of
providing the requisite esthetic data for a system such as the one
developed by Battelle. EPA's PDI system is being applied on a
nation-wide basis and the results are available.
B. Determinants of Water Quality
In examining the relationship between water quality and
pollution control levels, it is necessary to consider the physical
processes which determine quality of surface waters. Of course,
one of the primary determinants of quality is the quantity and type
of pollutants entering the body of water. However, of equal im-
portance is the inherent ability of surface waters to naturally
purify themselves through their capacity to assimilate wastes.
96
-------
Exhibit V-7. Components of the PDI water quality
measurement system.^/
Possible
Component value s
W /
Prevalence of pollution— £/
Duration of pollution 0-1.0
Consecutive days ^91 ^-4
92 ^ consecutive days - 183 0.6
184 ^ consecutive days S 274 0.8
Consecutive days ^ 275 1.0
Intensity of pollution 0-1,0
Ecological 0-0.5
Utilitarian 0-0.3
Esthetic 0-0.2
a/
— PDI = (prevalence) (duration) (intensity)
PDI
pollution index = • •
total stream miles
— A pollution zone is defined as a surface water area not con-
sistently in compliance with legal criteria for water quality.
— Prevalence = length of pollution zone in miles.
Source: Anonymous, The Economics of Clean Water, Vols. I and II,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 1972.
97
-------
The following discussion by Sheppard T. Powell is quoted
from Chow's hydrology handbook:
The waste-assimilative capacity of surface waters
is generally considered to be the amount of waste
which will not cause water-quality deterioration be-
yond the limits required for other beneficial uses of
the supply. Because oxygen-demanding wastes are
most frequently encountered, this capacity is com-
monly given in terms of the bio-chemical oxygen
demand (BOD) of the waste. Other wastes are very
important in determining the assimilative capacity,
however, and BOD should not be assumed the only
criterion.
The greatest single factor controlling the overall
waste-assimilative capacity of surfaqe waters is
the amount of dilution that is provided.
The primary factors controlling the BOD assimilative
capacity are dilution, temperature, and the relative
rates of biochemical deoxygenation and atmospheric
reoxyge nation. (8)
Typical assimilative capacities for various types of streams are
shown in Exhibit V.-8.
Powell further notes that different kinds of surface water
bodies typically have different levels of assimilative capacity.
Usually, water quality in an impoundment will be better than
the average quality of the influent stream. The mixing of fresh
water and sea water in estuaries present a large array of unique
quality considerations. J8)
Sources of surface water pollutants may be classified as
meterologic, domestic, industrial, and agricultural {9). In addi-
tion, consumptive use increases the concentration of suspended
and dissolved solids. The primary components in each of these
classifications are listed in Exhibit V-9.
98
-------
Exhibit V-8.
Total assimilative capacity of streams of different
orders.
Stream
order
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Average
dis-
charge
tcfs*
0.6
2.8
14
65
310
1,500
7,000
33,000
160,000
700.000
Average
depth
(ft)
0.55
35
1.8
2.7
5
12
25
45
Average
velocity
(ft per sec)
1.2
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
Coefficient
of reaera-
tion
(day'1)
9.3
5.5
2.6
1.8
1.0
.37
1 .19
.10
Total
length of
streams
(miles)
1 ,570,000
810,000
420,000
220,000
1 1 6,000
61,000
30,000
14,000
6,200
1300
Total assimilative
capacity
(Tons per day per
unit deficiency
in dissolved oxygen)
16,300
19,000
20,000
30,000
31,000
21 ,000
18,000
9,400
U.S. rivers repre-
sentative
of each order
Pecos
Shenandoah,
Raritan.
Allegheny, Kansas,
Rio Grande.
Tennessee,
Wabash.
Columbia, Ohio
Mississippi
Source: Todd, David Keith (ed.)i The Water Encyclopedia, Water
Information Center, Port Washington, N. Y.
Anonymous, various publications of the U. S. Geological
Survey, Washington.
99
-------
Exhibit V-9. Sources of surface water pollutants
Contributing factor
Principal quality input to surface waters
Meteorologic
Dissolved gases native to atmosphere
Soluble gases from man's industrial activities
Particulate matter from industrial stacks, dust,
and radioactive particles
Material washed from surface of earth, e.g.:
Organic matter such as leaves, grass, and other
vegetation in all stages of biodegradation
Bacteria associated with surface debris
(including intestinal organisms)
Clay, silt, and other mineral particles
Organic extractives from decaying vegetation
Insecticide and herbicide residues
Domestic use
Industrial use
Agricultural use
Undecomposed organic matter, such as garbage
ground to sewer, grease, etc.
Partially degraded organic matter such as raw-
wastes from human bodies
Combination of above two after biode gradation
to various degrees of sewage treatment
Bacteria (including pathogens) viruses, worm eggs
Grit from soil washings, eggshells, ground bone,
Miscellaneous organic solids, e.g., paper, rags,
plastics, and synthetic materials
Detergents
Biodegradable organic matter having a wide
range of oxygen demand
Inorganic solids, mineral residues
Chemical residues ranging from simple acids
and alkalies to those of highly complex molecular
structure
Metal ions
Increased concentration of salts and ions
Fertilizer residues
Insecticide and herbicide residues
Silt and soil particles
Organic debris, e.g., crop residues
Source: Todd, David Keith (ed.), The Water Encyclopedia, Water
Information Center, Port Washington, N. Y.
McGauhey, Engineering Management of Water Quality,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968.
100
-------
Another method of classifying pollutant sources divides
sources into natural and man-made. Each of these can be further
divided into point and non-point sources in reference to concen-
trated effluents like municipal sewage (point) as opposed to dis-
persed effluents such as runoff from agricultural lands (non-point).
Since the relationship of such a classification system to the one
presented in Exhibit V-9 is obvious, a detailed enumeration of the
natural versus man-made system, is omitted for brevity.
C. Measuring Water Pollution Control Levels
As with water quality, various methods are utilized
to describe degrees of pollution control. One commonly used
method is that of describing the general control technique being
used. Some agencies, such as the U.S. Census Bureau {10) typically
report water pollution control as none, primary, secondary or
tertiary. Others are more specific and describe the actual physical
configurations of the treatment systems being utilized. Such a
measuring system has the shortcomings of not accounting for
pretreatment of industrial wastes which are later treated in
municipal sewage plants, not specifically stating the quality of
the effluent and not reflecting the magnitude of effluent flows.
A slightly better approach consists of specifying the pro-
portion of specific pollutants (e.g. , organics measured as BOD)
which are removed from the effluent on a source by source basis.
However, such methodology yields substantial aggregation problems
due to differential effluent loads by source.
If one wishes to define degree of control as a percentage
or proportion, the most tractable approach consists of stating
the proportion of each specific pollutant removed throughout the
region being studied. Even this approach has its problems since
pollution control technology, industrial activity, etc. may vary
substantially within the study area. Also, total pollutant inflow
into surface waters can not be specified unless both raw effluent
flows and concentrations are known.
Unfortunately, even specification of total quantity of pollu-
tants contained in the treated effluent does not solve all the problems.
Distribution of tlie effluent is important in how it affects water qual-
ity and s-ome effluents may never reach surface waters. Also,
101
-------
relating water quality to each kind of pollutant could generate
massive computational requirements while a common denomin-
ator for combining dissimilar pollutants into one aggregate
measure is not readily at hand.
In summary, it seems any conventional means of measuring
or classifying the degree of pollution control creates some methodo-
logical problems.
D. Aggregation
Measuring water quality or pollution control effectiveness
at a given geographic point at a given point in time is much simpler
than relating the level of pollution control to water quality on a
national or even a regional basis. Neither surface water quality
nor effluent quality is consistent over time. Water quality varies
with a host of influencing factors including flow, temperature and
differential effluent loads due to seasonal variations in economic
activity. Likewise, effluent quality from a given treatment plant
may vary with throughput and a variety of operating conditions.
To illustrate the variability in surface water quality, the reader is
referred to Exhibit V-10 which states variations in dissolved solids
and sediment concentrations of major basins in the arid and semi-
arid portions of the United States. It is also noted that the effective-
ness of most treatment systems is described in terms of probabilitie
For example, a system might remove 90 percent of the BOD load 90
percent of the time.
Hence, when one speaks of relating benefits to water quality
it is implicitly assumed that water quality is being reflected as atx
average measure. The same is true for relating costs to degree of
control. Recognizing that surface water and effluent quality data
are often available on a temporal sampling basis as opposed to a
continuous monitoring basis, such samples must be aggregated to
yield a composite average annual quality measure. The simplest
method of aggregating such data over time is to compute the simple
average of the sample values. If the samples are not uniformity
distributed through time, the samples may first be adjusted to reflect
relative time weights. Alternatively, samples may be weighted by
rate of flow to more accurately reflect total volume of pollutant load
102
-------
Exhibit V-10. Variations in Dissolved Solids and Sediment Concentrations
in Major River Basins in Arid and Semiarid United States
Region
Dissolved solids
concentrations, mg/1
From To
Sediment concentrations,
mg/1-7
From
To
Columbia River Basin
Northern California
Southern California
Colorado River Basin
Rio Grande Basin
Pecos River Basin
Western Gulf of Mexico Basins
Red River Basin
Arkansas River Basin
Platte River
Upper Missouri River Basin
<100
^100
-------
EPA's PDI system utilizes still another approach for assessing
surface water quality with emphasis placed upon number of con-
secutive days that the water quality doesn't meet legal quality
criteria (see Exhibit V-7). A final approach might be to weight
the surface water quality samples by rate of surface water utili-
zation for beneficial uses. Procedures utilized in published
sources varies with no universally accepted technique apparent.
It is suggested that the technique which is most appropriate depends
upon the end use of the data and the overall methodology employed
in the study. Recommendations for temporal quality aggregations
in reference to national analysis of pollution control efforts are
presented in the final section of this chapter.
The geographic dispersion of water quality sampling stations
presents similar problems. Water quality often varies substantially
along a given stream. Typically, quality of a stream tends to in-
crease as one moves from the mouth toward the source. Although
some researchers indicate a need for one aggregate national water
quality number, we feel such a measurement would not be meaning-
ful in terms of a comparison of national pollution costs and control
costs. Furthermore, such measurements for major basins seem
undesirable. For example, the Missouri River is of very low
quality downstream of Omaha. However, some of the upper reaches
of the Missouri are of much higher quality. To average the quality
for the entire Missouri River Basin would seem to be an extreme
sacrifice of accuracy for computational expediency unless an ela-
borate aggregation methodology was employed. It seems more
reasonable to look at sub-basins or even zones within sub-basins
such that the geographic study area exhibits a fairly constant level
of water quality. Aggregation of water quality over sub-basins or
zones even poses methodology problems.
As with time considerations surface water quality data may
be geographically aggregated by taking the simple geographic average
of average annual quality for the sampling stations. However, such
a simplistic approach ignores the distribution of beneficial uses
and sampling stations. An approach like that utilized in the PDI
system resolves the latter problem but doesn't adequately account
for the distribution of beneficial uses. We feel the best approach
would be to assign a population base to each sampling station and
then weight the samples on the basis of population. However, we have
not been able to isolate studies utilizing this latter approach. Even
104
-------
the population weighting scheme has the disadvantage of not cor-
rectly weighting water quality in low population areas with high
recreational or ecological value. To reflect non-population
associated benefits, one could add a consideration for geographic
area represented into the weighting methodology. Several other
variations could also be proposed but, need not be elaborated at
this point.
Degree of control adds yet another dimension to the aggre-
gation problem. Effluent discharges are not evenly distributed
throughout a given study area and the effluent load generated within
an area has an impact upon the quality of surface waters in down-
stream areas. It must also be recognized that the type of treat-
ment and operational effectiveness of treatment processes will
vary by effluent source. Data on effluent quality is not as readily
available as surface water quality data but, similar aggregation
techniques are applicable where data are available.
E. Recommended Approach
The purpose of this section is to recommend an approach
for relating degree of control to surface water quality within a
national water pollution control assessment framework. The sug-
gested approach is in keeping with the short run, partial equilibrium
methodology outlined in Chapter II. It is felt that data required for
the recommended approach is consistent with long term planning
requirements. However, it must be stressed that this approach
has been developed for short term planning purposes only and is
not an adequate methodology when viewed in terms of general
equilibrium analysis which should be preferred in the longer run.
Furthermore, the reflection of physical relationships is cast in a
rather subjective setting since no rigorous approach is currently
available which could be applied on a national basis given reasonable
time and budget constraints.
Specific Measurements
For the purposes of this study the water quality characteristics
displayed in Exhibit V-ll have been adopted as measurements of water
quality. For current purposes, we do not foresee a need nor the utility
to aggregate all characteristics into a composite index. This does not,
105
-------
however, mean that we suggest further work with composite in-
dices should be abondoned. Indices such as the PDI can play a
very important role in water quality monitoring and other re-
search areas and should be further pursued. Even though some
esthetic measures are included in the list, it is recognized that
in many cases such data are not readily available. For a further
discussion of specific measurements, the reader is referred to
Appendix A of this report.
Water Quality Assumptions
If the analytical procedures adopted for assessing national
pollution control efforts are to be tractable, a number of water
quality assjmptions are necessary. For brevity, the assumptions
adopted herein are listed below in list form.
1. Average levels of water quality within a geographic
area are adequate for current purposes--!, e. , daily
quality variations will be ignored.
2. The quality for any given surface water body at 100
percent point pollution control can be estimated.
3. The quality for any given surface water body at 100
percent control of all man-made pollutants (i. e. ,
point and non-point) can be estimated.
4. The quality impacts of natural pollution will be taken
as an exogenous factor.
5. The cyclic impact of water pollution control upon
air quality which, in turn, affects the quality of
meterologic water and then surface waters will be
ignored.
6. Current water quality and water quality at 100 percent
point and point plus non-point pollution control can be
taken as three points on the same curve and the shape
of that curve can be subjectively derived for any given
surface water body.
106
-------
Exhibit V-ll. Water quality characteristics adopted for this study
Physical Characteristics E s the tic C ha rac te r i s tic s
Biochemical oxygen demand Floating solids
Chemical oxygen demand Taste
Fecal coliform bacteria Odor
Total dissolved solids Biota
Total suspended solids Appearance —
Hydro gen-ion concentration (pH)
Inorganic phosphate
Inorganic nitrogen ^ .
Toxic substances and trace elements —
Hardness (as CaCO3)
Temperature
Radioactivity
Color
Turbidity
Oil
*/
— As used here, appearance is a composite measure including color,
turbidity, rate of flow, shoreline appearance, etc.
**/
— Includes heavy metals
107
-------
Water Pollution Control Assumptions
As with water quality, assumptions concerning water pollution
control levels are also necessary. They are as follows:
1. Current levels of pollution control in any given area
can be generalized to a specific strategy.
2. Both non-point and point pollution are critical but com-
prehensive data for the former will limit its analysis.
3. Seasonal variations in effluent flow and quality will
be included to the extent available but it is anticipated
that annual averages will be used in most cases due to
data limitations.
Re la ting Quality to Abatement
The general form of the surface water quality level of abate-
ment relationship is as depicted in Exhibit V-12. One such relation-
ship is required for each pollutant or water quality measurement in
each sub-basin or pollution zone. It is noted that the relationships
for one specific water quality characteristic is not necessarily inde-
pendent of other water quality characteristics. Care must be taken
to adequately reflect these synergistic relationships even if it re-
quires a separate set of quality abatement curves for each abatement
strategy to be considered. To the furtherest extent possible, such.
curves should also be developed for seasons of the year.
Recognizing that surface water quality within a geographic
study area may not be uniform, the problem of weighting samples
from monitoring stations must be considered. Furthermore, it
must be noted that economic activity, biota, senic attractions, etc.
are not apt to be uniformily distributed. Hence, an average water
quality number designed to most accurately reflect quality for one
beneficial use may not be the most appropriate for another beneficial
use.
108
-------
to
.-J
fc
fl>
*J
O
«J
M
O
>>
Vi
I
ri
O
.
i
o
Pollutant load
Degree of control
Exhibit V-12. General form of surface water quality - degree of
control curves.
109
-------
One could generate an average surface water quality number
for each beneficial use category in the study area. However, such
an undertaking on a national basis seems unreasonable. Another
possibility is to generate two quality numbers: one weighted by
population and one by geographic area. But, if study areas are
carefully chosen, the population weighted number may not be signi-
ficantly different from the area weighted number. If the latter possi-
bility proves true when actual data are examined, the geographic
weighting technique is recommended since it eases computational
requirements. It is hoped that further examinations will show that
average area of surface water between monitoring stations can serve
as a surrogate for geographic area.
Distribution of effluents is as important as water quality samples,
One approach would be to assume all effluents entered the surface
water system at its centroid. Another would be to evenly distribute
it with respect to geographic area. However, we recommend a more
difficult approach which entails estimating the proportion of total
effluents entering the surface water system between monitoring
stations. The latter approach seems warranted since it properly
accounts for large effluent concentrations which may occur near a
study area boundary.
Given appropriate measurements of surface water and effluent
quality, the impact of a given abatement strategy must be traced
throughout the length of a basin, starting at the uppermost reach and
progressing toward the lower end of the basin.
To illustrate and clarify the procedures discussed above, a
simple example is given below.
F. An Illustrated Example
When describing a methodology, it is sometimes beneficial to
illustate its application. Such an approach is taken in this final section
describing the relationship of degree of pollution control and water
quality. Even though an hypothetical example would have sufficed,
it was felt a real world example would be more meaningful. In the
following example, we have combined some hypothetical and subjective
elements with, hopefully, enough actual data to yield a meaningful
illustration.
110
-------
Municipal and industrial effluent data representative of the
Maumee Sub-basin of the Lake Erie Basin were adapted from Matson
(11). Water quality data for one year at the mouth of the same sub-
basin were adapted from the U.S. Public Health Service ( !2). The
data was subjectively modified to adjust for what seemed to be
unusual circumstances. In an actual study, examination of more
than one year's water quality data would be required but, such an
undertaking would have further delayed preparation of this report
and, hence, seemed unwarranted for the current illustrative example.
The same argument is true for a subjective modification required to
place effluent flows and water quality data in the same time frame.
Hence, the data should be viewed as hypothetical rather than being
truly reflective of the Maumee Sub-basin.
The illustrative sub-basin displays average monthly temper-
atures ranging from the 20's in January to the 70"s in July. Annual
precipitation varies from 28 to 40 inches with the average being
about 35 inches. The surface waters have high levels of dissolved
phosphate and hardness. Plankton flora are abundant and diverse.
The sub-basin is roughly circular with a fifty-mile radius en-
compassing roughly 6, 500 square miles. Total stream miles are
about 2,800 which includes nearly 300 streams. Land in the sub-
basin is very flat with natural conditions without drainage, being
predominately heavily wooded marshlands. The soils are fine
textured, poorly drained and relatively impermeable. The 1968
population of 1.2 million was centered around Toledo, Lima and Fort
Wayne. Industrial activity includes primary and fabricated metals,
oil refining, glass, chemicals, machinery, meatpacking, brewing
and other food processing. Agricultural activity is highly developed
with predominant enterprises including vineyards and orchards. The
sub-basin includes a number of recreational developments ( Hi 12).
Raw and treated effluent flows for the illustrative case appear
in Exhibit V-13. Nonpoint effluents after treatment were assumed to
equal 25 percent of total treated effluents. Both point and nonpoint
flows were assumed to be equally distributed throughout the year.
Only the BOD load is presented with the implication that other
effluent and water quality factors would be handled in the same
manne r.
Ill
-------
Exhibit V-13. Raw and treated effluent flows, illustrative case
BOD in 1000 Ibs/day
Pollutant source raw— after treatment
Point sources
Municipalities
Industrial
Total
Nonpoint sources
Total
201
266
467
N.A.
N.A.
36
31
67
22
89
*/
— N.A. denotes not available
Source: Point flows adapted from Matson, Jack V. , Cost of
Industrial and Municipal Water Pollution Abatement
in the Maumee River Basin, unpublished Master's
Thesis, University of Toledo, 1968.
Nonpoint flows are hypothetical estimates.
112
-------
Water quality at the mouth of the basin varies substantially during
the year. BOD levels vary from less than 0.5 to nearly 18 milligrams per
liter. Weighting BOD levels in each sample by the period of time between
samples yields average levels in milligrams per liter as follows: January-
March 8.6, April-June 4.8, July-September 3.5, October-December 7.7.
Again, note that these data include subjective adjustments as described
above.
By examining conditions of the sub-basin, conditions and water
quality data in other areas in the basin and surrounding areas and applying
general water quality principals, two more sets of water quality points
were estimated: one for 100 percent reduction of point pollution and
one for 100 percent reduction of point pollution plus elimination of all
non-point man-made pollution. The latter point corresponds to what
water quality in the basin would be under natural conditions given cur-
rent vegetative patterns. These points are presented in Exhibit V-14.
Given the water quality for 1968 conditions, 100 percent point
control and 100 percent point and nonpoint control and given effluents
for each level of quality, the relationship of pollution level to water
quality can be graphed as shown in Exhibit V-14 . The curves for the
second and fourth quarters of the year do not correspond to what one
would anticipate. It is suggested that this is a result of the assumption
that nonpoint pollution is evenly distributed throughout the year. Even
this simple case points out the inseparability of point and nonpoint pollu-
tion in terms of quality impacts. If one were to assume nonpoint pollu-
tion was more heavily concentrated in spring and early summer and less
heavily concentrated in the remainder of the year, all four curves would
display the same basic shape.
Two significant conclusions can be drawn from the relationships
depicted in Exhibit V-14. First, water quality varies over time and hence
the impact of a pollution abatement strategy will vary over time. There-
fore, the benefits accruing from a given strategy will vary over time and
the total benefit calculated on an average annual basis may not be the
same total benefits calculated on an average quarterly basis (note:
benefits are not normally a linear function of quality). Second, the
level of nonpoint pollution will partially determine Both the magnitude
and slope of the quality/pollution curve. Hence, one cannot estimate
benefits from a given strategy unless something is known or at least
assumed about the level and temporal distribution of non-point pollu-
tion. Acceptance of this latter conclusion places almost all previously
published benefit studies in a questionable light.
113
-------
One further step is required to allow comparisons of benefits
and costs: relating degree of pollution control to total effluent load.
That relationship is depicted in Exhibit V-15. The vertical intercept
is the total raw wasteload from point sources. The dashed line cor-
responds to an 85 percent reduction in effluent BOD--i. e. , an after
treatment load of 67, 000 pounds per day as shown in Exhibit V-13.
Note that degree of control is stated in terms of point pollution only.
This approach is taken to provide consistency with data generally
found in the literature. However, if so desired, one could easily
relate total effluent load to average degree of treatment for all
pollution sources including both point and non-point.
Now given Exhibits V-14 and V-15, benefits and costs
could be meaningfully compared as described in the preceding
chapters of this report.
Before concluding this chapter, one further comment seems
pertinent: the relationships depicted in Exhibit V-14 tend to be
dynamic while those depicted in Exhibit V-15 are static. With in-
creasing levels of population and economic activity, the vertical
intercepts of the latter functions become higher and higher. In
other words, it requires a higher degree of treatment to maintain
the same level of water quality. Alternatively, gaines in treat-
ment efficiency may be equally offset by increases in the total raw
wastewater flow. Hence one can correctly conclude that if water
quality remains constant over time and economic activity increases, ,
total benefits will increase and cost of control per capita will in-
crease. If per capita pollution costs remain constant while per capita
costs of control increase, this conclusion is highly significant since the
economic justification for truly high quality water would diminish over
time. We feel, however, that technological advances in the waste
treatment industry may well offset this effect, at least in the short
run. Also, when so called benefits from pollution control are
viewed in the more appropriate framework of costs of pollution,
it may be possible to demonstrate that per capita costs of pollution
increases as the economy and populus expands.
114
-------
mg. BOD5/1
in surface water
at mouth of basin
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
1,000 Ibs BOD^/day in effluent entering surface waters
Exhibit V-14. Surface water quality as a function of effluent load, BOD
by quarter of year, illustrative example.
I - January -March
II = April - June
III = July - September
IV = October - December
115
-------
1,000 Ibs.
BOD/day from
point sources
500
450
400
350
300
250
ZOO
150
100
50
Raw Wasteload
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
% reduction in point source BOD load
80 90
100
Exhibit V-15. BOD content o£ treated effluent as a function of degree
of treatment, illustrative case.
116
-------
Footnotes
(1) Matson, Jack V. and Bennett, Gary F., "Cost of Industrial
and Municipal Waste Treatment in the Maumee River Basin,"
Water-1969, Lawrence K. Cecil (ed.)» Chemical Engineering
Progress Symposium Series, Vol. 65, No. 97, American
Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, 1969.
(2) Anonymous, The Economics of Clean Water, Vols. I and II, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 1972.
(3) Anonymous, Water Quality Criteria, National Technical Ad-
visory Committee on Water Duality Criteria, Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Washington, 1968.
(4) Anonymous, Water Quality Criteria, California State Water
Quality Control Board, 1963.
(5) Prati, L. , Pavanello, R. and Pesarin, F. , "Assessment of
Surface Water Quality by a Single Index of Pollution," Water
Re sources Research (GB), No. 5, pp. 741-51, 1971,
(6) Dee, Norbert, et al., Environmental Evaluation System for
Water Resource Planning, Battelle Columbus Laboratories for
Bureau of Reclamation, U. S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, 1972.
(7) Plumlee, Harry J., Arizona Department of Economic Planning
and Development, personal discussions, December, 1972.
(8) Chow, Ven Te (ed.), Handbook of Applied Hydrology, McGraw-
Hill, New York, 1964.
(9) Todd, David Keith (ed.), The Water Encyclopedia, Water
Information Center, Port Washington, N. Y.
(10) Anonymous, various publications concerning the 1970 Census,
U. S. Bureau of Census, Washington.
(11) Matson, Jack V. , Cost of Industrial and Municipal Water
Pollution Abatement in the Maumee River Basin, unpublished
Master's thesis, University of Toledo, 1968.
117
-------
(12) Anonymous, various water quality records published by the
U. S. Public Health Service, Washington.
(13) McGauhey, Engineering Management of Water Quality,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968.
(14) Davis and DeWient, Hydrology, John Wiley and Sons, 1966.
(15) Anonymous, various publications of the U. S. Geological
Survey, Washington.
118
-------
SEC TION VI
CONCLUSIONS AND DIRECTION OF FUTURE WORK
The preceding chapters have gone considerably beyond a
simple enumeration of research needs and priorities. This was
not a calculated extension but rather was the inevitable byproduct
of preliminary attempts to establish research needs and priorities
in an area of endeavor that is relatively unexplored and besieged
with controversy. Many have studied the water quality problem but
very few have had the courage or found it necessary to venture out
of the protective shelter provided by the convenient simplifying
assumptions amenable to and associated with estimating isolated
water quality impacts or even comprehensive impacts for a small
geographical area. By changing the scope of the problem from
selected water quality impacts to comprehensive national impacts
the problem is transformed into a very circuitous task that seems
to collapse at every point and thereby becomes almost totally defiant
of solution. In this regard economics as a profession has not assisted
the policy-maker in his need for acquiring immediate answers so as
to successfully allocate limited time, effort and resources to these
areas representing the greatest current need. It is felt that the
expanded scope of this part of the project has been a valuable ex-
penditure of time in that many firm conclusions have been reached.
These include hypothesized results that might be expected from
extending previously conducted studies to derive national benefit
cost estimates, subjective judgments of areas of emphasis and re-
search needs, and possible results of further research. It is there-
fore fitting that as a concluding note some of the salient points are
briefly summarized. These items are briefly enumerated and dis-
cussed under several categories: methodological conclusions , benefit
cost estimation and state-of-the-arts. It further behooves us to
present these conclusions in the most summarized and straightforward
manner possible.
A. Methodological Conclusions
It is indeed unfortunate that many of the methodological limi-
tations have not been satisfied prior to this point in time. In general,
the conclusions in reference to methodology are as follows:
1. General equilibrium models, preferred on a theoretical
basis, are not currently implementable. Sizeable data
problems, and lack of sufficient sensitivity to natural,
physical and socioeconomic considerations prevent the
119
-------
general equilibrium approaches from being utilized
to ascertain immediate answers or estimates of
water quality associated impacts. There is a general
lack of readily accessible methodology applicable to the
water quality management problems.
2. Partial equilibrium models are not free of limitations
but must be utilized in the short run.
3. Cost minimization's the preferred partial equilibrium
approach in that it formulates the problem in its proper
conceptual framework.
4. Other deficiencies or limitations such as the substitution
phenomenon, current aggregation problems and the trans•
formation function relating degree of treatment and "re"^
suiting surface water quality, prevent and prohibit ascer-
taining socially optimum results.
The above items constitute the major methodological issues
that have been encountered. These have been recognized in the pre-
ceding chapters and in some cases steps were initiated to partially
eliminate the problems or at least to describe in more detail the
considerations that are involved.
B. Benefit and Cost Estimation Conclusions
1. Pollution abatement cost estimates do not represent a
pressing research need.
2. Water quality associated benefit estimation represents
a pressing research need.
3. Benefit estimation methodology is currently lacking,
especially in reference to intangible esthetic, recre-
ation and ecological impacts.
4. Results of existing studies can not be accurately extra-
polated to derive national benefit (cost reduction) estimates
5. Pollution abatement standards do not appear justifiable
basecl solely on monetary cost reductions. Other indirect
and intangible costs need to be quantified.
120
-------
6. The feasibility of national pollution abatement measures
hinge almost entirely on recreation, esthetic and eco-
logical cost reductions. It is felt that these beneficial
uses are the source of sizeable benefit estimates or
cost reductions and have not as of this time been ade-
quately estimated primarily because of lack of appro -
priate methodology.
7. Given current benefit estimation techniques national
benefits (cost reductions) jare not expected to be of
sufficient magnitude to justify pollution abatement
expenditures (annualized costs).
8
8. The subjective benefit and cost material presented in
Appendix A represents a first effort to establish a
national priority with respect to beneficial use and
specific pollutant and is viewed as possessing con-
siderable value as a planning and decision tool.
The above items indicate that there are numerous short-
comings in benefit cost methodology and current estimates. This
limitation stems primarily that previous work has been project-
problem-crisis oriented. Few have attempted to identify and quan-
tify national impacts of water quality improvement in methods other
than extrapolating existing studies. This has left sizeable metho-
dology and estimate voids, i.e. , for example, even though a great
deal is known about the harmful effects of specific pollutants, no-
where have we been able to find listings of specific pollutants ac-
cording to the damage they inflict on a national basis. The problem-
project-crisis approach leaves much to be desired in that national
directions are left unspecified and are difficult to determine. One
should not be overly pessimistic in that the recognition of the problem
is the first step in the eventual solution. If Phase III could further
refine the direction of future study or make even very minor inroads
into the development of ecological, esthetic or recreational estima-
tion research needs and procedures, the contributions of the project
would be highly significant.
Before suggesting areas of emphasis for future research, it is
perhaps again instinctive to place the problem in perspective by re-
focusing on the short-run and immediate research needs listed in
Section I. These short-run and immediate research needs and
priorities are reproduced below:
121
-------
C. Short-Run Economic Research Needs and Priorities
The following items constitute economic research needs
that could be at least partially satisfied in the short-run given
existing data and methodology constraints. The three major
divisions and subdivisions are listed in their relative order of
importance.
It should not be surprising to find that benefit estimation
is the singularly most important need to be satisfied in the short-
run.
I. Develop, refine and implement methodology for
assessing water quality associated impacts with
special emphasis on the following short-run re-
search needs.
A. Benefit estimation
1. Refinement of overall benefit estimation
methodology
2. Refinement and implementation of intangible
benefit estimation methodology and techniques
3. Estimation of substitution impacts
4. Development of multivariate water quality
associated benefit functions
5. Interfacing economic, hydrologic, biological
and engineering water quality models
6. Estimation of irreversible damages
7. Development of a satisfactory aggregation
scheme.
B. Cost estimation
1. Refinement of overall cost of pollution abate-
ment methodology
2. Development of nonpoint pollution estimate
and cost of treatment
3. Development of a treatment versus resulting
stream quality function
4. Further development of least cost treatment
strategies
5. Development of cost aggregation framework
122
-------
C. Implicit in all of the above items is the development
of a satisfactory data base including but not limited to
the following items.
1. Pollutant level by receptor
2. Effluent flows by source
3. Effluent flows by process
4. Precise water quality monitoring data
5. Damage thresholds and impact ranges
6. C ritical effluent levels
7. Synergistic effects
II. Develop pollution abatement policy alternatives with
special emphasis on the following items:
A. Development of spatially variable policies and
abatement standards
B. Minimization of equity and distribution effects
C. Development of alternative policies to provide
internal incentives to reduce effluent loads
III. Analysis and inauguration of institutional and structural
changes required to implement many of the above items.
D. Immediate Research Needs and Priorities
While all of the above items constitute short-run economic
research needs and priorities that could be eliminated given present
data and methodology constraints, there is great disparity in the
importance or urgency associated with each of these items. There
is also the need to further develop and refine techniques useful in
appraising short-run priorities so as to insure that current resources
and efforts are properly directed. For this reason those items repre-
senting the greatest need have been singled out and listed below:
123
-------
1. Continue to develop, refine and implement procedures
useful in ascertaining the most detrimental pollutants.
2. Continued refinement of water quality associated benefit
estimation methodology.
3. Development and implementation of benefit estimation
methodology appropriate for the estimation of intangible
water quality associated benefits.
4. Investigation of complex water quality substitution effects.
5. Development and implementation of multivariant benefit
function (relating benefits to several key pollutants).
6. Interfacing economic, biological, hydrological and
engineering models.
The areas recommended for immediate emphasis should be
consistent with the areas representing the greatest current needs.
The following items are therefore proposed possible areas of im-
mediate emphasis and are consistent with the original areas of need.
I. Further development of general methodology applicable
to assessing the impacts of water quality deterioration.
Items of special interest may include attempts to explore
selected methodological problems that are currently
lacking and prohibit accurate water quality assessment.
a. Substitution effects
b. Treatment versus quality transformation functions
c. Aggregation schemes
II. Additional refinement of benefit matrix material pre-
sented in Appendix A, with the expressed intent of achievinc
refined, final priority ranking to be used as a decision tool
and general aid in providing direction for future research
so that current efforts can be directed to those areas
representing the greatest current need.
III. In that the justification of future pollution abatement in-
vestment seems to hinge on identification and quantification
of ecological, esthetic and recreational impacts, any effort
expended in this direction has a great potential value. The
third alternative is therefore to devote time and effort to
contribute to the development and refinement of associated
methodological and estimation problems.
124
-------
SECTION VII
APPENDICES
Page
A. Appraisal of Costs of Control and Benefit Estimates 126
B. Water Quality Associated Health Impacts 160
C. Specific Pollutants 175
D. Critical Levels and Damage Thresholds 185
125
-------
APPENDIX A
Appraisal of Costs of Control and Benefit Estimates
State -of-the -Data
and
Subjective Estimates
One of the purposes of this Phase II report is to provide an
insight into the current state-of-the-data with respect to costs of
water pollution control and the pollution cost reductions (benefits)
accruing therefrom. Also, this report is to address and provide
subjective estimates of costs of control, relative magnitude of
beneficial uses, and relative importance of specific pollutants.
This appendix is dedicated to fulfilling these objectives.
Costs of Control - Introduction
In examining costs of abatement, the following items are
relevant:
1. Total wastewater flow
2. Quality of untreated wastewater
3. Total wasteload before treatment
4. Treatment strategies employed
5. Proportion of wastewater that is treated
6. Quality of effluent after treatment
7. Total wasteload after treatment
8. Regional distribution of wasteflows
Each of these needs to be examined for each source group.
Furthermore, it must be recognized that each item changes over
time and, hence, the dynamic characteristics of the problem
should be addressed. This latter point is especially critical in
view of the current and anticipated rates of technological advance-
ment in the water pollution control industry. Rates of change in
population and economic activity are likewise important. Also,
when interpreting abatement cost estimates, it should be recog-
nized that enforcement of effluent standards may, in the long run,
induce emitors to initiate structural changes resulting in reduced
126
-------
wasteflow or increased quality of raw effluent. In short, any ob-
jective data currently available are the result of partial analyses
and must be regarded accordingly. With these qualifications in
mind, objective data concerning the ten points listed above are
presented below for estimated conditions in 1968 and 1976. Then,
meaningful data and benefit estimations can be pursued.
The Environmental Protection Agency has divided pollution
sources into seven major categories (1):
1. Municipal
2. Industrial and power plants
3. Federal installations
4. Agricultural and rural
5. Mining
6. Water resource development
7. Transportation.
Industrial sources have further been classified in accordance
with SIC (standard industrial code) numbers. In discussing costs of
abatement below, EPA's source classifications are utilized. How-
ever, wastewater flows and cost data are only presented for the first
two categories due to the state-of-the-arts of the data and time con-
straints.
Before further pursuing cost and benefit estimates, the
reader is forewarned that the data contained in this appendix were
assembled on a best efforts basis. They are presented here not be-
cause we feel they are final answers nor, in some cases, even good
estimates but, rather, because of an acute awareness of the need for
such data on the part of the policy-makers involved in environmental
protection decision-making processes. The tasks undertaken and
summarized herein were substantial and, in many cases, unprece-
dented. In view of the awesome nature of the problem addressed,
both monetary considerations and length of time devoted to the under-
taking were far less than what would be required to provide answers
with which we would feel comfortable. However, if the reader re-
minds himself of the potential pitfalls involved in deriving subjective
estimates based upon very limited data and doing so in a very short
time frame, we feel the results can be of highly significant value.
To our knowledge, the rankings of both beneficial uses and pollutants
127
-------
by relative importance represent the first of their kind. We feel they
represent a monumental first step toward establishing a water quality
research program soundly based upon anticipated results rather than
emotion or chaos.
Total Flows, Raw Effluent Quality and Total Wasteload^
Estimated total wastewater flows by source group during
1968 are presented in Exhibit A-l. Industrial wastewater flows are
for process water only. The exhibit also contains estimated total
wasteload by major pollutant based upon the concentrations which are
also shown. It is immediately obvious that wastewater flows vary
substantially between source groups, suggesting that some source
groups such as chemicals and allied products and primary metals
may be far more significant from an environmental viewpoint than
others such as electrical machinery, rubber and plastics and textile
products. Total wasteloads of specific pollutants are also unevenly
distributed between the source groups.
Exhibit A-l should be viewed as incomplete in that several spe-
cifio pollutants which may be of interest are not reported and data are
not available in some instances for even the more commonly studied
pollutants. Expansion of these tables to include all effluent quality
characteristics adopted in Chapter V of this report should be considered
as a priority area for further research. It should also be noted that
the numbers reported in the tables are estimates and, in some cases
the validity of the estimates are at best questionable. Refining these
estimates for 1976 conditions should be viewed as another research
priority area.
Treatment and Effluent Quality
Since effluent characteristics vary by source group and even bv
process within a source group, different pollution abatement strate-
gies are required by source group. For current purposes, the follow-
ing treatment strategies are considered (1):
128
-------
Exhibit A- 1. Raw wasteflows and pollutant loads by source group, 1968
Food & kindred Textile mill
Item products products
Volumetric flow
(billion gallons/year)
Concentration before treatment
BOD (mg.//)
Total load (million Iba/yr)
COD (mg. IS. )
Total load (million Ibs/yr)
Fecal coliform bacteria
(106MPN/100 ml)
M Total dissolved solids(mg. iJi}
-° Total load (million Ibs/yr)
TSS
-------
Exhibit A- 1. Raw wasteflows and pollutant loads by source group, 1968 (continued)
Petroleum
Item & coal
Volumetric flytf
(billion gallons/year)
Concentration before treatment
BOD (mg./l)
Total load (million Ibs/yr)
COD (mg./^)
Total load {million Ibs/yr)
^ Fecal coliform bacteria
Total dissolved solids (mg./J)
Total load (million Ibs/yr)
Total load (million Ibs/yr)
PH
Toxic substances (mg. /J! )
Total load (million Ibs/yr)
430
45
161
200
717
0
NA
42
150
4.5
NA
NA
Rubber &
plastics
62
30
15.4
60
30.8
0
0
0
37
19
NA
NA
NA
Leather
51
2,500
1, 070
3.000
1,290
0
30,000
12,800
2, 000
854
NA
NA
NA
Stone, clay
& glass
240
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Primary
metals
1,820
15
228
80
1,214
0
NA
NA
130
1,970
NA
NA
NA
Fabricated metal
products
110
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
continued
-------
Exhibit A- 1. Raw wasteflows and pollutant loads by source group, 1968 (continued)
Item
Volumetric flow
(billion gallons/year)
Machinery
99
Electrical
equipment
139
Transportation
equipment
160
Municipal
Wastewater
Industry not
Domestic reported elsewhere
6,142
411
Concentration before treatment
BOD (mg./ )
Total load (million Ibs/yr)
COD (mg./ )
Total load (million Ibs/yr)
»— Fecal coliform bacteria
£ (106MPN/100 ml)
Total dissolved solids(mg.
Total load (million Ibs/yr)
TSS (mg./ )
Total load (million Ibs/yr)
PH
Toxic substances (mg. / )
Total load (million Ibs/yr)
Source: Volumetric flow:
48
40
NA
NA
0
/ ) NA
NA
40
33
NA
NA
NA
92
107
NA
NA
-
NA
NA
26
30
NA
NA
NA
Environmental Protection Agency,
60
80
NA
NA
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
The Economics of
276
14,137
350
17,930
200
700
35,800
200
10,250
NA
NA
NA
Clean Water, Vols.
276
946
350
1,200
200
700
2,400
200
685
I and II,
Other data: DPRA subjective estimates.
-------
1. Oil separation
2. Equalization
3. Coagulation and sedimentation
4. Neutralization
5. Floatation
6. Sedimentation
7. Aeration
8. Biological stabilization
9. Chlorination
10. Evaporation
11. Incineration
12. Activated sludge
By taking a combination of these treatment processes, one can
generally describe the treatment strategy of a given source group.
Exhibit A-2 represents such an undertaking. It is stressed that the
strategies so depicted are generalized and may not be truly repre-
sentative of each and every emitor within a given source group.
Historically, a large proportion of the total waste flow was not
treated. Even though significant inroads were made during the
past decade, effluent treatment was not universally practiced by
1968. Exhibit A-3 contains estimates of the proportion of waste flow
treated by source group at that point in time. For the task at hand,
it will be assumed that 100 percent of all point effluents will be
treated by 1976.
Effluent quality after treatment by source group is very difficult to
estimate. Some of the complicating factors are discussed in
Chapter V of this report. They can be summarized by recognizing
that within a given source group, different raw effluent qualities,
specific treatment processes and operating policies, and climatic
conditions will vary. Even so, after treatment effluent qualities
are recognized as critical determinants in comparing benefits and
costs accruing from alternative national pollution control policies.
Therefore, our beat estimate of after treatment quality under
wasteflows and treatments prevailing in 1968 is presented in
Exhibit A-4. However, the reader is warned that the estimates
are subject to a very low degree of confidence due to very limited
and conflicting data. Estimates are only presented for BOD, COD,
and TSS since these appear to be the only pollutants consistently
132
-------
Exhibit A- 2. Treatment processes employed to control specific pollutants, by source
group to meet current standards in
Pollutant
Biochemical oxygen demand
Chemicc 1 oxygen demand
Fecal coliforms
Dissolved solids
Suspended solids
pH
Toxic substances
Food & kindred
products
6, 8
3, 5, 6, 8
9
3
3, 5, 6, 8
2, 4
NA
Textile mill
products
6, 8
3, 6, 8
-
3
3, 6, 8
2, 4
3, 6
Lumber &c wood
products
6, 8
6, 8
-
NA
6, 8
4
6
Paper & allied Chemicals & allied
products products
6, 8, 11 6, 7, 8, 9
6- 8' 11 1,3,5,6,7,8,9
-
NA 3
6, 8, 11 3, 5, 6, 8
4 2, 4
6 3, 6
U)
10
continued
-------
Exhibit A- 2. Treatment processes employed to control specific pollutants, by source
group to meet current standards in 1968*/ (continued)
Petroleum Rubber & Stone, clay Primary Fabricated metal
Pollutant fe coal plastics Leather & glass metals products
Biochemical oxygen demand 8, 12 6, 8 8 NA 6, 8
Chemical oxygen demand 1,3,5,8,12 3, 6, 8 3, 5, 8 NA 1. 3, 6, 8
Fecal coliforms - -
Dissolved solids 3 3 3 3 3, 10
Suspended solids 3, 5, 8 3, 6, 8 3, 5, 8 3, 6 3, 6, 8
pH 2, 4 2, 4 2, 4 4 2, 4
Toxic substances 2 - NA NA 3, 6, 10
3, 9
3, 9
-
3
3
2, 4
3
continued ....
-------
(ft
Exhibit A-2. Treatment processes employed to control specific pollutants, by source
group to meet current standards in 1968*/ (continued)
Pollutant
Biochemical oxygen demand
Chemical oxygen demand
Fecal coliforms
Dissolved solids
Suspended solids
PH
Toxic substances
Electrical
Machinery equipment
3 3, 9
3 3, 9
-
3 3
3 3
2, 4 2, 4
3 3
Transportation
equipment
3, 9
3, 9
-
3
3
2, 4
3
Municipal waste -
water
6, 8
6, 8
9
6, 8
6, 8
NA
-
— See text for definition of treatment process code numbers.
Source: Environmental Protection
Agency, The Economics of Clean
Water, Vols. I and II,
Washington, 1972.
-------
Exhibit A- 3.
Municipal and industrial wastewater treatment practices in the U.S.
Billion gallons of wasteflow by disposal method
1968
Source
Food and kindred products
Textiles
Lumber and wood products
Paper and allied products
Chemicals and allied products
Petroleum and coal
Rubber and plastics
Leather*
Stone, clay and glass
tu Primary metals
Fabricated metal products
Machinery
Electrical equipment
Transportation equipment
Domestic
Treated hr
industry
204.5
86.2
39.6
1,326
457
324
3.3
34.2
39.6
560
12.2
13.7
33
12.5
--
Sewered, by^treattnent level
f
Primary
89.8
27.0
1.8
35.2
40.7
0.9
3.6
11.6
7.5
18.8
21.8
8.2
29.2
14. 1
2,051.0
Secondary
155.8
46.7
3.0
61.1
70.6
1.5
6.2
20.2
13.1
32.6
37.9
14.1
50.5
24.4
3,556.0
Untreated
23.4
7.0
0.5
9.2
10.6
0.2
0.9
3.0
2.0
4.9
5.7
2.1
7.6
3.7
534.0
Ground
discharge
49.4
2.2
8.0
24. 1
28.4
4.7
1.2
1.4
12.7
16.4
0
0
4.6
4
--
Untreated
330.0
48.0
141.0
1.559.0
2,232.0
98.7
46.3
0
165.0
1, 187.0
32.4
61. 1
14, 1
101.0
--
Total
853
217
194
3,010
2,840
430
62
51
240
1,820
110
99
139
160
6,142
Industrial treatment plus sewerage exceeds total wasteflow for the leather industry.
Source: Distribution of sewered treatment, DPRA.
Other data: Environmental Protection Agency, The Economics of Clean Water, Vol. I and II,
Washington, 1972.
-------
Exhibit A- 4. Subjective estimates of after treatment wasteloads
prevailing in 1968, by source group
Source group
Food and kindred products
Textile
Lumber and wood products
Paper and allied products
Chemicals and allied products
Petroleum and coal
Rubber and plastics
Leather
Stone, clay and glass
Primary metals
Fabricated metal products
Machinery
Electrical equipment
Transportation equipment
Munic ipalitiee
BOD
2,713
514
N.A.
5,260
6,055
78
13
131
N.A.
174
N.A.
31
46
61
5,097
Million pounds per
COD
7,297
600
N.A.
47,624
7,768
276
27
181
N.A.
8,101
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
8,343
year
TSS
4,015
69
N.A.
2,575
1,250
90
16
90
N.A.
1,392
N.A.
24.4
12.0
N.A.
3, 102
137
-------
reported on an after treatment basis. Quality of treated effluents
by alternative abatement strategies should be viewed as another
research area deserving attention.
Total wasteflow, treated effluent concentrations and total
wasteloads under 1968 flow conditions and current standards are
estimated in Exhibit A-5.
Distribution of Wasteflows
Regional distributions of industrial wasteflows are summar-
ized in Exhibits A-6 and A-7. The former table^shows, for each
industry, the proportion of wasteflow discharged in each water use
region. The latter table shows, for each region, the proportion
of the regional wasteflow generated by each industrial sector.
Wasteloads Summarized
Before proceeding to costs of control estimates, a brief
summary of the data in Exhibits A-l through A-7 seems in order
and, for brevity, is presented below in outline format:
1. The total raw wasteload of any given pollutant varies
substantially by source group.
2. The relative importance of a. specific pollutant varies
substantially by source group.
3. Effluent treatment process requirements vary sub-
stantially between source groups and pollutants within
source groups.
4. In 1965, the degree of treatment varied tremendously
between source groups.
5. Pollutant wasteloads under prevailing 1968 conditions
varied substantially by source group but, in general
all sources were at relatively low levels of treatment.
(We feel the data for the leather industry is misleading
due to a high degree of overlap between private and
municipal treatment leaving a substantial amount of
low quality effluent).
138
-------
ExhibitA- 5. Wasteflow, after treatment pollutant concentrations and after treatment
wasteloads, current standards in 1968, by source group
co
NO
F
Item
Volumetric flow
(billion gallons/year)
Concentration after treatment
BOD (mg./£ )
Total load (million Ibs/yr)
COD (mg. /I)
Total load (million Ibs/yr)
Fecal coliform bacteria
(106MPN/100 ml)
Total dissolved solids (mg./jl)
Total load (million Ibs/yr)
TSS (mg./^)
Total load (million Ibs/yr)
pH
Toxic substances (mg. /^)
Total load (million Ibs/yr)
ood fa kindred
products
852
35
250
50
355
.09
900
7, 000
40
285
NA
NA
Textile mill
products
217
35
63
40
72
-
1, 100
2,000
20
36
NA
4
7
Lumber & wood
products
194
NA
NA
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
Paper & allied
products
3,015
30
754
60
1,510
-
NA
20
503
NA.
NA
Chemical & allied
products
2,840
20
474
35
829
-
NA
20
474
NA
NA
-------
Exhibit A- 5. Wasteflow, after treatment pollutant concentrations and after treatment
wasteloads, current standards in 1968, by source group (continued)
Petroleum
Item & coal
Volumetric flow
(billion gallons/year)
Concentration
BOD (mg. / )
Total load (million Ibs/yr)
COD(mg./ )
Total load (million Ibs/yr)
Fecal coliform bacteria
£ (106MPN/100 ml)
Total dissolved solids (mg./ )
Total load (million Ibs/yr)
TSS (mg. / )
Total load {million Ibs/yr)
430
15
54
20
72
-
NA
20
72
Rubber 8t
plastics
62
10
5
20
10
-
NA
15
8
Stone, clay
Leather & glass
51 240
50 NA
21
NA NA
-
NA NA
40 NA
17
Primary Fabricated metal
metals products
1,820
5
76
40
607
-
NA
20
304
110
NA
NA
-
NA
NA
PH
Toxic substances (mg. / )
Total load (million Ibs/yr)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
Exhibit A- 5. Wasteflow, after treatment pollutant concentrations and after treatment
wasteloads, current standards in 1968, by source group (continued)
Item
Volumetric flow
(billion gallons/year)
Concentration after treatment
BOD (mg. / )
Total load (million Ibs/yr)
COD (mg. / )
Total load (million Ibs/yr)
Fecal coliform bacteria
(106MPN/100 ml)
Total dissolved solids (mg.
Total load (million Ibs/yr)
TSS(mg./ )
Total load (million Ibs/yr)
PH
Toxic substances (mg. / )
Total load (million Ibs/yr)
Source: Volumetric Flows:
•\r~l«, T -,-.,1 TT W.» c
Machinery
99
25
21
NA
-
/ ) NA
20
17
NA
NA
Electrical
equipment
139
40
46
NA
-
NA
15
17
NA
NA
Environmental Protection Agency, The
Transportation
equipment
160
30
40
NA
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
Economics of Clean
Municipal
wastewater
7,480
20
1,250
35
6.7
620
3,870
20
1,250
NA
NA
Water,
Other data: DPRA.
-------
Exhibit A- 6. Regional distribution of industrial waste discharge, by major industrial
sectors, 1968
Regionally New Del.
Assignable Eng. &
Discharge Hu<£.
Meat Products
Dairy Products
Canned & Frozen Foods
All Other Food Products
Textile *ti11 Products
Paper S Allied Products
Chemical & Allied Products
Petroleum and Coal
Rubber & Plastic, n.e.c.
Primary Metals
Machinery exc. Electrical
Electrical Machinery
Transportation Equipment
Assignable Discharge
Percent of Industrial
Discharge, 1968
Preludes Hawaii
^Includes Alaska
99.0
98.8
93.1
84.4
98.5
98.7
99.0
92.0
92.9
96.6
99.9
96.9
97.0
96.5
100.0
.5
7.5
1.4
3.7
13.5
11.9
1.2
.1
15.8
.7
14.9
9.6
31.4
93.2
3,9
D
4.2
4.3
3.2
5.9
4.7
3.3
7.3
26.4
7.4
6.1
34.0
18.
3.
96.7
8.3
Chesa. East. Ohio Tenn.
Bay Gr. Lak. Riv. Cum.
St. Law.
2.7
4.9
2.5
.7
2.9
4.9
5.7
D
2.5
6.9
1.2
10.8
5.1
82.6
5.3
• Disclosure
1.0
8.9
3.9
1.0
.5
3.2
6.4
5.8
35.7
17.5
4.8
8.5
33.3
95.9
10.2
8.6
5.1
2.3
4.0
2.4
2.4
16.6
2.3
6.8
29.4
9.0
25.6
4.6
98.1
16.1
not available due
1.5
.6
D
.2
6.3
3.1
9.3
—
D
.5
.8
1.0
.6
91.5
3.8
- - '_ -
S.E.
11.6
2.3
29.0
3.4
65.7
28.9
4.7
2.0
6.9
1.7
.7
4.1
1.7
97.8
7.7
to disclosure
West
Gr. Lak
2.8
12.5
5.3
9.8
D
7.8
2.7
13.0
8.4
25.2
12.5
9.0
7.1
96.1
12.7
Upper
. Miss.
30.9
24.7
2.9
14.0
.5
6.0
2.1
1.2
4.3
2.6
19.8
5.
2.1
88.7
4.1
constraints on
Lower
Miss. Mo.
1.7
2.8
1.9
11.7
1.4
2.7
8.0
10.2
3.3
0
.3
.5
D
78.7
5.2
U. S.
17.9
4.3
.9
6.7
—
1.0
.4
1.6
0
.4
.2
.8
D
81.3
1.0
Bureau
Ark. West.
W&R Gulf
6.7 2.8
4.7 1.
1.8 .8
.3 1.5
D D
3,8 2.5
.9 31.5
1.1 27.5
.9 0
.6 3.4
.3 .7
.9 D
.5 5.0
95.7 99.3
1.3 13.3
of Census
Colo.
Basin
0
D
D
0
D
.1
D
D
0
.2
D
D
D
61.7
0.1
Gr.
Basin.
D
1.3
D
D
D
D
0
.1
D
D
D
D
D
8.2
0.2
. Ca,.1
3.5
7.0
20.5
20.3
.6
2.1
.6
8.4
.9
.2
.7
3.0
2.2
81.6
2.8
Pacf.2
N.M.
2.6
6.4
16.7
1.2
D
15.0
1.6
.2
0
1.2
D
D
D
87.6
4.0
Source: Environmental Protection Agency, The Economics of Clean Water, Vols. I and II, Washington, 1972,
-------
Exhibit A- 7. Sources of regional industrial waste discharge, by region, 1968
PERCENT OF REGIONAL DISCHARGE BY INDUSTRY
UJ
New
Eng,
Meat Products .1
Dairy Products .7
Canned * Frozen Foods .3
All Other Food Products 2.5
Textile Mill Products 3.3
Paper * Allied Products 44.1
Chemical * Allied Products 9.3
Petroleum and Coal .1
Rubber & Plastic, n.e.c. 3.6
Primary Metals 5.9
Machinery exc. Electrical 4.8
Electrical Machinery 2.0
Transportation Equipment 16.5
Assignable Discharge 93.2
1
Includes Hawaii
2
Includes Alaska
Source: Environmental
Del.
.4
.2
.6
4.0
.5
5.8
25.7
26.9
.8
24.0
5.2
1.8
.8
96.7
D
Chesa East
Bay Gr. Lak.
.4 .1
.3 .3
.4 .3
.5 .3
.5
13.4 4.5
31.7 18.4
D 4.8
.4 3.1
31.0 56.1
.3 .6
1.7 .7
2.0 6.7
82.6 95.9
= Disclosure
Protection Agency
Ohio Tenn. S.E. West. Upper Low Ark Ue^t
Riy Cunb. Gr. Lak. Hiss. Miss. Ho. W&R Gulf'
•4 -3 ]-° -2 5.3 .2 12.5 3.6 .1
.1 - 1 4 77 o i f t
'••* •' 1.61.4
.1 - 3.2 4 K o ft -i .,
-H •" .3 .8 1.2
•8 -2 '-5 2-4 T.6 7.6 22.6 .7 .4
-1 !•« 8.1 0 .1 .3 I D D
2.1 11.8 54.6 9.0 21.4 7.7 14.3 42.7 2.7
30.2 72.6 18.0 6.2 15.0 45.0 12.3 20.9 69.2
T-2 - 2.3 8.7 2.5 16.6 13.6 7.4 17.6
•4 ' -8 -6 -9 .6 D .6 Q
60-1 4-1 7-2 65.3 20.7 0 14.0 15.5 8.4
•7 "3 •' 1-2 6.2 .1 .3 .3 .1
K3 -2 -4 •« 1.0 .1 .6 .6 0
•6 -4 -5 1-1 1.1 D D .8 .8
98.1 91.5 97.8 96.1 88.7 78.7 81.3 95.7 99.9
not available due to disclosure constraints on
Bureau of Census
, The Economics of Clean Water, Vols. land
Colo. Gr. pacf._
Basin Bas. Cal.* N.K
-------
6. Our interpretations of current standards and associated
wasteloads after treatment imply that current standards
applied in 1968 would have greatly reduced the after
treatment wasteload as compared to prevailing con-
ditions at that time.
7. Although not estimated herein, wasteflows in 1976 under
full compliance will still contribute sizeable pollutant
loads to surface waters.
8. Regional wasteflows and composition of wasteflows are
of such a nature that regional considerations in a
national pollution control assessment cannot be ignored.
Costs of Control
Capital and annual operation and maintenance costs required
to meet current standards in 1968 are presented in Exhibit A-8.
These data are supplied by EPA (1) as the maximum possible cost.
However, the costs are based upon prevailing water efficiency and
wasteflow conditons in 1968. Also, from various industrial firms
and trade organizations we have seen substantially higher estimates.
We feel EPA's maximum cost number for 1968 is probably better
than the ones assuming structural changes resulting in substantial
increases in water use efficiency and modification of wasteflow levels
For comparative purposes, the estimated replacement value
of industrial and municipal treatment facilities are presented in Ex-
hibit A-9. Again, the actual 1968 condition falls considerably below
the current standards case. This condition is summarized in Exhibit
A-10 which reports capital requirements in 1968 to meet current
standards, prevailing 1968 treatment configurations and the amount
that prevailing costs fell short of current standards. Also, the capital
cost of meeting economic and population expansion between 1968 and
1976 are presented in the latter table. Please note that the 1976 capital
requirements are stated in constant 1967 dollars and that the inflation
rate for construction costs in the wastewater treatment segment of the
economy has risen much more rapidly than for the economy on the
average. Wastewater capital costs during 1968-71 rose roughly one-
third. Total annual municipal and industrial pollution control costs
for full compliance in 1976 (including annualized capital cost) will
probably exceed 4.5 billion 1967 constant dollars.
144
-------
Exhibit A- 8. Cost of meeting current standards under \Sfe8 wasteflow conditions in millions of
1967 dollars
Pollutant
treated/cost
component
Biochemical
oxygen demand
Capital
Annual O&M
Chemical
oxygen demand
Capital
Annual O&M
Fecal coliforms
Capital
Annual O&M
Dissolved solids
Capital
Annual O&M
Suspended solids
Capital
Annual O&M
PH
Capital
Annual O&M
Toxic substances
Capital
Annual O&M
Total cost
Capital
Annual O&M
Food & kindred
products
781
15
835
22
4
1
40
2
835
22
158
7
N.A.
N.A.
997
58
Textile mill
products
216
9
239
10
0
0
23
1
239
10
13
1
149
8
251
11
Lumber & wood
products
163
8
163
8
0
0
N.A.
N.A.
163
8
23
2
91
6
186
10
Paper & allied
products
1,170
97
1,170
97
0
0
N.A.
N.A.
1, 170
97
381
17
490
58
1,551
112
Chemicals &
allied products
434
22
2, 100
112
0
0
350
52
804
102
338
16
475
61
2,436
128
-------
Exhibit A- 8. Cost of meeting Current standards under 1968 wasteflow conditions in millions of
1967 dollars (continued)
Pollutant
treated/cost Fabricated metal
component products Machinery
Biochemical
oxygen demand
Capital
Annual O&M
Chemical
oxygen demand
Capital
Annual O&M
Fecal coliforms
Capital
*>. Annual O&M
Dissolved solids
Capital
Annual O&M
Suspended solids
Capital
Annual OfcM
PH
Capital
Annual O&M
Toxic substances
Capital
Annual O&M
Total cost
Capital
Annual OfcM
96
9
96
9
0
0
94
9
94
9
28
3
94
9
124
13
74
8
74
8
0
0
74
8
74
8
25
3
74
8
100
11
Electrical
equipment
96
11
96
11
0
0
94
10
94
10
33
3
94
10
130
14
Transportation
equipment
86
12
86
12
0
0
84
11
84
11
37
4
84
11
J23
16
Municipalities
16,810
629
16,810
629
0
2
N.A.
N.A.
16,810
629
N.A.
N.A.
0
0
16,810
631
-------
Exhibit A- 8. Cost of meeting current standards under 1%8 wasteflow conditions in millions of
~ dollars (continued)
Pollutant
treated/cost
component
Biochemical
oxygen demand
Capital
Annual OfeM
Cheinical oxygen
demand
Capital
Annual OKtM
Fecal coliforms
Capital
Annual O&M
Dissolved solids
Capital
Annual O&M
Suspended solids
Capital
Annual OfeM
PH
Capital
Annual OfcM
Toxic substances
Capital
Annual O&M
Total cost
Capital
Annual O&M
Petroleum
and coal
650
24
1, 066
47
0
0
84
11
90
11
30
2
12
00
1,096
48
Rubber and
plastics
71
4
86
5
0
0
16
1
86
5
10
1
0
0
96
6
Leather
27
1
66
4
0
0
38
2
66
4
21
1
N.A.
N.A.
87
4
Stone clay
and glass
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
0
0
136
17
148
17
34
4
N.A.
N.A.
182
21
Primary metals
126
8
1,240
126
0
0
473
92
475
99
258
21
533
96
1,620
147
Source: Environmental Protection Agency, The Economics of Clean Water, Vols. I and II, Washington, 1972.
-------
Exhibit A- 9. Cost of reported municipal and industrial treatment, 1968
Cost in millions of 1967 dollars
Source Group
Food and kindred products
Textiles
Lumber and wood products
Paper and allied products
Chemical and allied products
Petroleum and coal
Rubber and plastics
Leathe r
Stone, clay and glass
Primary metals
Fabricated metal products
Machine ry
Electrical equipment
Transportation equipment
Manuf a c tu r in g
Municipal
Capital
replacement
value
194
49
10
530
343
342
3
17
20
216
7
15
24
17
1,787
12,392
Annual
operation
15
4
2
65
63
73
0
2
2
35
0
1
2
1
263
539
Source: Environmental Protection Agency, The Economics of Clean
Vols. I and II, Washington, 1972. " " " ~
148
-------
Exhibit A- 10. Municipal and industrial waste treatment requirements, 1968 and 1976
capital cost, millions of 1967 dollars
Replacement value of
Source group
Food and kindred products
Textiles
Lumber and wood products
Paper and allied products
Chemicals and allied products
Petroleum, and coal
Rubber and plastics
Leather
Stone, clay and glass
Primary metals
Fabricated metal products
Machinery
Electrical equipment
Transportation equipment
Manufacturing
Municipal
*Rate of improvement in water
Requirement
1968
997
251
186
1,551
2,436
1,096
96
87
182
1,620
124
100
130
123
8,966
16,810
capital
supplied, 1968
Industrial Municipal
194
49
10
530
343
342
3
17
20
216
7
15
24
17
1,787
N.A.
productivity is greater than
Source: Adapted from: Environmental Protection
Agency,
315
64
2
79
192
7
23
17
22
126
51
49
92
92
1, 132
12,392
rate of growth
Deficit
1968
488
138
174
942
1,901
747
70
53
140
1,278
66
36
14
14
6,047
4,418
of output.
The Economics of Clean
Growth
1968-76
189
82
0*
145
572
55
38
18
27
560
48
5
34
13
1,786
2,572
Water, Vols.
Requirement
1976
1, 186
333
186
1,696
3,008
1, 151
134
105
209
2, 180
172
105
164
136
10,752
19,382
I and II,
Washington, 1972.
-------
Benefits £rom Pollution Control
The reductions in national pollution costs (benefits) associ-
ated with the above costs of control data are not available at this
time. However, some regional studies are available. Also,
some subjective estimates as to the form of the national pollution
cost reductions can be made. These are summarized below:
Exhibit A-11 represents a restatement of regional benefits
obtained in three of the more comprehensive studies currently
available. Note that the benefits are only referenced in terms of
percentage distribution of monetary benefits accruing from pollution
control among beneficial uses. Although the original studies re-
ported actual dollar estimates, such estimates are not useful at
this juncture since they cannot be used as a basis for estimates of
absolute national welfare (see generally Chapters I-III of this re-
port for substantiation of this conclusion).
Perhaps the most outstanding characteristic of these studies
is representative of nearly all studies examining comprehensive
benefits from pollution control -- empirical estimations of health,
ecological and intangible esthetics are absent. Another problem is
highlighted since none of the studies examine substitution effects.
The Anondaga Lake study is further limited since it appears only
one industrial firm of significant size in the area utilizes surface
water as a supply and the municipal benefits were obtained by sub-
stituting water from one lake with water from another lake of equal
quality. Municipal benefits were then calculated as the total cost
of preuse treatment. Due to these shortcomings, the following dis-
cussion will consider only the Ohio and Maumee studies.
In apology to the original investigators, we readily admit
that while we have stated benefit distributions in terms of a water
quality range, they estimated benefits as a function of degree of
effluent removal. Any interpretation errors resulting from this
transformation rests solely upon those preparing this report and
not the original investigators.
In search of a way to make thie data in Exhibit A-11 take on
more realism, it was felt an adjustment for substitution should be
made --at least for recreation. Since sources examining the
magnitude of substitution effects in water-based recreation are not
150
-------
Exhibit A- 11. Distribution of monetary benefits accruing from water pollution control among
beneficial uses, selected studies, by level of water quality
Beneficial use
Ohio Basin
Low -m edium
water quality
Medium -high
water quality
Maurnee Basin
Onondaga
Low-medium
water quality
Medium-high
water quality
Me dium - hi gh
water quality
Health
Production
Municipal water treatment
Domestic use
Industrial use
Navigation
Commercial fishing
Total
Tangible esthetics
Recreation
Property values
Total
Ecological and intangible esthetics
TOTAL
2.6
6.3
6.9
2.2
0.0
18.1
77.8
4.2
81.9
100.0
3.3
8.0
8.8
2.8
0.0
23.0
74.3
2.7
77.0
100.0
24.2
31.7
13.9
0.0
0. 0
69.8
28.7
1.5
30.2
100.0
28.9
25.4
21.6
0.0
0.0
75.9
23.0
1.2
24. 1
100.0
12.8
3.5
0.9
0.0
17.3
60.9
21.8
82.7
100.0
*
— Substantially revised by DPRA from originally published data so that meaningful comparisons could be made.
Sources: Ohio Basin: H. C. Bramer, The Economic Aspects__of the Water Pollution Abatement Program in the Ohio
River Valley, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pittsburg, I960.
Maumee Basin: Jack V. Matson, Coat of Industrial and Municipal Water Pollution Abatement in the Maumee
River Basin, Master's Thesis, University of Toledo, 1968.
Onondaga Lake: N. L. Nemerow and R. C. Faro, ''Measurement of the Total Dollar Benefit of Water
Pollution Control," Benefits of Water Quality Enhancement, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
1970, pp. 39-144.
-------
available, we hypothesized it could range anywhere from 0 to 100
percent. As a midpoint, we assumed 50 percent of the original
benefit estimation for recreation would be lost due to substitution
effects. The adjusted benefit distributions under this assumption
are depicted in Exhibit A-12. Even then, recreation comprises a
very large share of total benefits. These relationships for the
Ohio and Maumee basins have been averaged and displayed geo-
graphically in Exhibit A-13.
The curves in Exhibit A-13 are interesting not only in
terms of magnitudes but also in terms of slope. Simply stated,
they imply that as water quality changes, beneficial uses are im-
pacted in different proportions.
Utilizing the Ohio and Maumee studies as a base, subjective
benefit distributions were derived which included both health and
ecological and intangible esthetic impacts. First, the two studies
were averaged and it was assumed the result is fairly representative
of the U. S. as a whole. Secondly, recreation benefits were re-
duced 50 percent, as noted above, to adjust for substitution. Estim-
ating ecological and intangible benefits were most difficult. After
considerable deliberation, it was concluded that the best indicator
for the value of these benefits was recreation benefits before sub-
stitution considerations. For current purposes we feel it is reason-
able to assume that ecological and intangible benefits are at least
as large as the recerational benefits as calculated in the base studies
Given production, tangible esthetics and ecological and intangible
esthetic estimates, health benefits were estimated through obser-
vation of national health data and a good deal of subjectivity. A
further subjective modification was required to include irrigation
which was not a beneficial use in the base studies. The resultant
estimates are presented in Exhibit A-14. The high proportion of
benefits allocated to each category will no doubt be criticized by
some as being too high and by others as being too low. Yet, we
feel they are reasonable and accurately reflect the evidence pre-
sented by available studies. Note that the study team attempted to
find documented evidence of such relationships but hypothesized
any existence of such relationships for those cases where adequate
documentation was not available.
To further investigate the importance of specific pollutants
by beneficial use, the potential damages matrix in Exhibit A-15 was
152
-------
Exhibit A- 12. Adjusted distribution of monetary benefits accruing from water pollution
control among beneficial uses, by level of water quality*/
Beneficial use
Health
Production
Municipal water treatment
Domestic use
Industrial use
Navigation
Commercial fishing
Total
Tangible esthetics
Recreation
Property values
Total
Ecological and intangible esthetics
TOTAL
Ohio
Low -me dium
water quality
-
4.2
10.3
11.4
3.7
0.1
29.6
63.6
6.8
70.4
-
100.0
Basin
Medium -high
water quality
-
5.2
12.7
14.0
4.5
0. 1
36.7
59.1
4.2
63.3
-
100.0
Maumee Basin
Low-medium
water quality
--
28.3
37.0
16.2
0.0
0.0
81.5
16.8
1.7
18.5
-
100.0
Medium -high
water quality
-
32.7
28.7
24.4
0.0
0.0
85.7
13.0
1.3
14.3
-
100.0
Onondaga Lake*/
Medium -high
water quality
-
18.4
-
5. 1
1.3
0.0
24.9
43.8
31.4
75.1
-
100.0
— Assumes 50 percent of recreation benefits are eliminated when substitution impacts are included in the analysis.
-------
Exhibit A-13. Average adjusted monetary benefit distribution for the Ohio and Maumee basins.
Percent of
total benefits
Percent of
total benefits
uu
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
100
Without substituion of recreational benefits
90
80
70
. *ecreation 6°
T°tal tan^j3thlt2£5zS^^ 50
40-
30
— — _ ^Domestic 20
fn'dus'trial ^
• • *
With substitution of recreational benefits (5
^
?5JUt|ngibIe esthetics
"" ~ ^SSJeation""" —
fndust rial
Low-medium Medium high
Water Quality
Low-medium Medium high
Water Quality
-------
Exhibit A- 14. Subjective estimate of distribution of social benefits
accruing from water pollution control among beneficial uses;
by level of water quality
Beneficial use
% of Benefits
Low-medium
water quality
Medium-high
water quality
Health
Production
Municipal water treatment
Domestic use
Industrial use
Irrigation & animal health
Navigation
Commercial fishing
Total
Tangible Esthetics
Recreation
Property values
Total
Ecological & Intangible Esthetics
TOTAL
4.5
10.0
14.0
8.5
4.0
0.5
0.1
37.1
18.5
2.0
20.5
37.9
100.0
4.0
12.0
12.5
11.5
3.0
1.5
0.1
40.6
17.0
1.5
18.5
36,9
100.0
155
-------
Exhibit A- 15. State-of-the-arts of pollution-beneficial use potential relationships, over all ranges of water quality
HEALTH
PRODUCTION
Industrial
BOD
COD
pH
Coliform
Nitrogen
Phosphate
Toxic Sub.*/
Hardness
TDS
TSS**
Temperature
Oil
Color
Turbidity
Odor
Taste
Radionucles
Floating Solids
Human
Health
Mun. Preuse
Treatment
OU ID
OU ID
ID ID
ID ID
ID ID
OU ID
ID ID
ID ID
ID ID
ID ID
OU OU
ID ID
OU ID
ID ID
OD ID
OD ID
ID ID
OU ID
a o
s '•§
c pollutant has an effect upon usability
#*/ 0 => pollutant has no effect upon usability within water quality ranees normally
— Includes sellable solids.- t ,.,-LLJ _,
D => a pollutant-use relationship has been documented
U => documentation of a pollutant-use relationship (or lack of one) has not been
(or lack of one) seems plausible
References: 1. "Water Quality Criteria. " FWPCA. 1968.
Z. Todd, "The Water Encyclopedia." 1970.
3. "Manual on Industrial Water and Industrial Waste Water. ". ASTM Special Technical Publication No. 148-1, 1966.
4. Zajic, J. I., "Water Pollution — Disposal and Reuse, " 1971.
5. Lund, H. F. , "Industrial Pollution Control Handbook," 1971.
6. "Cleaning our Environment the Chemical Basis for Action, " Am. Chem. Soc. 1969.
Acknowledgement: Dr. Dennis Tihansky, Economic Analysis Branch, EPA,
provided invaluable assistance in the preparation of the
benefit matrix.
encounte red
found, but such a relationship
-------
multiplied by the average of the appropriate beneficial use distri-
butions in Exhibit A-14. The resultant subjective ranking is pre-
sented in Exhibit A-16. In most cases the individual cell values
seem plausible. Also the ranking of beneficial uses based upon
the average row seems consistent with anticipated results.
However, the row (pollutant) ranks are not realistic. The
problem here is hopefully one of not including indicators of
pollutant and prevalence and intensity rather than basic incon-
sistencies in the ranking matrix.
Hence, our subjective ranking of beneficial uses is the
order in which they appear in Exhibit A-16 with ecological and
intangible esthetics being the most important. Commercial fish-
ing is the least important.
One last step was taken to subjectively estimate the relative
importance of specific pollutants. By adjusting the row rankings
in Exhibit A-16 by subjective prevalence and intensity factors, a
final ranking was obtained and summarized in Exhibit A-17. It
should be noted that these rankings were made with respect to man-
made pollutants. Impacts from natural pollution are not reflected
in the rankings. However, we have attempted to account for both
source point and non-point pollution in both the subjective benefit
distributions and pollutant rankings.
At the risk of redundancy, we again point out that these data
are highly subjective. The subjective rankings of pollutants are
especially weak in that respect. However, it is our hope that they
may be useful to those faced with allocating funds for future studies.
Exhibit A-17. Subjective ranking of specific pollutants by their
relative impact on beneficial uses
Group I: Organics --BOD, COD
Group II: Nutrients -- nitrogen and phosphates
Group III: Suspended and dissolved solids
Group IV: Turbidity, pH, temperature
Group V: Fecal coliforms, oil, toxic substances, floating solids,
color, odor
Group VI: Hardness, taste radioactivity
157
-------
Exhibit A-16. Subjective ranking of beneficial use-pollutant soical cost potential relationships-'
I/
Beneficial Use
Pollutant
TSS
Oil
Turbidity
Floating solids
Color
TDS
pH ,
j /
Toxic sub.—
Nitrogen
Coliform
Radionucles
COD
BOD
Phosphate
Odor
Hardness
Temperature
Taste
Total
Average
4/
Density—
Ecologic fc
intangible
esthetics
.374
.374
.374
.374
.374
. 187
.187
.187
.374
.374
. 374
.374
.374
.374
.374
.187
.187
.187
5.610
.312
.833
Recre -
ation
. 1775
.1775
.1775
. 1775
. 1775
. 1775
. 1775
. 1775
.1775
.1775
. 1775
. 1775
.1775
.1775
. 1775
0
. 1775
.0888
2.9288
.163
.917
Municipal
preuse
treatment
. 11
. 11
. 11
. 11
. 11
. 11
. 1 1
. 11
. 11
. 11
. 11
. 11
. 11
. 11
. 11
. 11
0
. 11
1.870
. 104
.944
Domestic
use
. 1325
. 1325
. 1325
. 13Z5
. 1325
. 1325
. 1325
. 1325
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
. 1325
. 1325
0
1.325
.074
.556
Industry
Use
.10
.08
. 08
.10
.07
.10
. 10
.09
.02
. 02
.01
.02
. 02
.02
.01
.08
. 04
.01
.970
.054
.539
Health
.0425
.0425
.0425
0
0
.0425
.0425
.0425
.0425
.0425
.0425
0
0
0
0
.0425
0
0
.425
.024
.556
Ag.
Irri-
gation
.035
.035
0
0
0
.035
.035
.035
.035
.035
. 035
.035
.035
0
0
.035
.035
0
.420
.023
.667
Property
values
. 0175
.0175
.0175
. 0175
.0175
. 0175
.0175
. 0175
.0175
. 0175
. 0175
. 0175
.0175
. 0175
.0175
0
.0175
0
.280
.016
.889
Navi-
gation
.01
.01
0
.01
0
.01
. 01
0
.01
0
0
.01
.01
.01
0
.01
0
0
.100
.006
.556
Com-
mercial
fishing
.001
. 001
, 001
.001
.001
. 001
. 001
. 001
.001
.001
.001
.001
. 001
.001
.001
.001
.001
. 001
.018
.001
1.000
Total-
1. 000
.980
.935
.922
.882
.813
.813
.793
. 788
. 778
. 768
. 745
. 745
.710
.690
.598
. 590
.397
.793
— Cell rank equals product of row rank and column rank. Row rank is
uses. Column rank equals one if pollutant is significant for that use,
— Maximum possible total value is 1.0.
— Includes heavy metals.
— Density = average value for column/highest possible value for a cell
158
determined by distribution of total social benefits
, otherwise zero. Maximum possible cell rank is
in that column.
among beneficial
1.0.
-------
References Cited
1. Environmental Protection Agency, The Economics of Clean "Water,
Vols. I and II, Washington, 1972.
2, Bramer, H. C., The Economic Aspects of the Water Pollution
Abatement Program in the Ohio^River Valley, Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Pittsburg, I960.
3. Matson, Jack V. , Cost of Industrial and Municipal Water Pollution
Abatement in the Maumee River Basin, Master's Thesis, University
of Toledo, 1968.
4. Nemerow, N. L. and Faro, R. C., "Measurement of the Total Dollar
Benefit of "Water Pollution Control," Benefits of Water Quality
Enhancement, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 1970,
pp. 39-144.
159
-------
APPENDIX B
Water Quality Associated Health Impacts
Phase I of this project included a brief section on the health
impacts emanating from water quality degradation. This general
area represents one are of water quality management which has re-
ceived some attention in the past but complete documentation is
presently lacking. The intent here is to briefly explore these water
quality impacts, present data sources, procedures, and to so far
as possible hypothesize the magnitude of water quality associated
health impacts.
The Extent of the Health Impacts
There is substantial and convincing evidence of undesirable
impacts on human health resulting from lack of water quality control.
Microbiological, chemical, physical and radioactive pollutants are
of concern with respect to human health. It has been estimated
that in some countries one -third to one -half of the hospital beds
are occupied by patients suffering from waterborne diseases (1).
A review of water-related disease outbreaks in the United
States has shown that during the fifteen year period 1946-1960, there
were 228 known outbreaks of disease attributed to drinking water.
To be considered an outbreak, a death or at least two cases of the
disease had to be reported. Thus the resulting statistics do not
include single cases of waterborne diseases. The data show 25,984
cases of illness associated with waterborne diseases that occurred
during the period. This gives an annual rate of 1. 1 waterborne
illnesses per 100,000 population served by public water supplies
This rate includes outbreaks of typhoid, gastroenteritis,
infectious hepatitis, salmonellosis and a few other diseases. How-
ever, it does not include methemoglobinemia, for example, since
this usually occurs in individual cases of infants. There are some
other human health impacts associated with water quality which
have only recently come to attention of health officials. There
are also many cases of water related health problems which
are not reported by the victim as well as long-term effects which
160
-------
may occur over a number of years which have not yet been ade-
quately analyzed. Thus the annual rate mentioned above of 1. 1
waterborne illnesses per 100,000 population must be considered
the lowest possible rate for that period (1946-60). Exhibit B-l
presents the incidence of water borne diseases in the U.S. during
this period.
Exhibit B-l. Waterborne diseases in the United States, 1946-60
Disease
Gastroenteritis
Typhoid
Infectious hepatitis
Diarrhea
Shigellosis
Salmonellosis
Amebiasis
Other
Total
Outbreaks
Number
126
39
23
16
11
4
2
Cases
Number
13,630
506
930
5, 160
5,653
24
45
25,984
Source: The Nation's Water Resourcej^ United State Water Resource
Council, Washington, D. C., 1968. p. 5-4-1.
Major Water Quality Variables Associated with Health
Impacts
The water quality variables currently being measured in the
United States which are known to be most important in terms of health
impacts are the levels of fecal coliforms, the biochemical oxygen
demand {BOD), the dissolved oxygen level (DO), dissolved solids
and levels of toxic chemicals such as mercury.
Biochemical oxygen demand is a surrogate indicator of the
effect of a combination of substances and conditions. It is a measure
of the amount of dissolved oxygen that will be depleted from the water
during the natural biological assimilation of organic pollutants. Swiftly
161
-------
moving streams have a greater capacity, for reaeration and for
preventing the accumulation of high BOD materials in bottom de-
posits than do sluggish streams or reservoirs.
Dissolved oxygen is one of the most commonly used para-
meters of water quality. Low levels of DO adversely affect fish
and other aquatic life and total absence of DO leads to the develop-
ment of an anaerobic condition with attendant odor and esthetic
problems. The ability of water to hold DO decreases with increases
in temperature or dissolved solids (3).
Fecal coliform counts show the level of fecal contamination
of water. These counts are used as indicators of the potential of
the water for transmission of viral diseases.
Levels of chemicals in water can often be measured directly.
Health Impacts Associated with Specified Pollutants
The following Exhibit (Exhibit B-2) presents a number of
health impacts resulting from lack of water quality control, the
method of transmission to the population, the specific pollutants
involved in each impact and the sources of these pollutants. The
most appropriate water quality variables which are currently
thought to be reliable indicators of the potential of the water for
transmission of the pollutant and creation of undesirable health
impacts, or spreading of diseases (such as virus diseases) are
also given.
162
-------
Exhibit B-2
Methods of Transmission of the Pollutants to the Population
The methods of transmission of the pollutants to the population
may be categorized as:
1. Pollutants which enter throug the public water supply.
a. Chemical impurities
b. Bacteria, viruses, etc.
2. Pollutants which enter through the food supply (where
the food is polluted by water, such as a buildup of
chemicals in fish which will be consumed by humans).
a. Chemicals in water supplies
b. Bacteria and viruses in water supplies
3. Effects of polluted water on transmission of com-
municable diseases by
a. Natural populations (such as mosquitoes)
b. Domesticated animals
c. Humans
4. Pollutants which enter the body through direct (bodily)
contact with the water.
5. Pollutants which lead to ecological changes which affect
human physical and/or psychological health.
163
-------
Health impacts
(Damages)
Alteration of liver
function, hydroperi-
cardium (accumula-
tion of fluid in sac
surrounding heart)
and chloracne (skin
eruptions).
Eye irritation
Method of Transmission
(2) Through the food chain
'
as
(4) Bodily contact with
water
Schistosomiasis- (1) Enters through the
(rash stomach pain, intestine when person
dizziness, damage to drinks contaminated
internal organs,
anemia, cancer of
the liver)
water, and
(4) Enters through the
skin of swimmers or
waders in contamin-
ated •water.
Pollutants
Polychlorinated
biphenyls
Indicator (Water
Quality Variable)
PCB level (meas-
ured directly)
Too high or low a
pH level (and buffer
capacity of water)
Schistosomiasis eggs in
feces from infected
humans develop into
larvae in streams or
ponds and seek an
Australorbis glabratus
snail. They burrow
into the snail and emerge
as free, swimming organ-
isms which can infect man
if a victim is iound within
30 to 36 hours.
pH level (meas-
ured directly)
Coliform count -
(Can be used as
an indicator of
the potential for
transmis sion)
Source of Pollutant
Industrial and municipal
discharges to inland and
coastal waters.
Discharges of acids
or bases, acid mine
d ra ina ge
Human feces
—' Number codes in this column refer to categories described on page 4 of this section.
-------
Health impacts
(Damages)
Hepatitis
(inflamation of
liver)
Cholera (diarrhea,
vomiting, .nuscle
c ramps, low blood
pressure)
Malaria (fever,
chills , back pain)
Method of Transmission
(16, 26) a virus which is
spread through contami-
nated water on food (esp.
raw oysters or clams)
(Ib, 2b) through water
supply or food supply,
ingestion of food or water
contaminated with Vo
cholerae
(3) Transmitted by
Anopheles mosquitoes
Pollutants
Virus growing in pol-
luted water
Contamination of supply
with V. choJerae
(through fecal contami-
nation)
Mosquitoes breeding in
swampy areas
Indicator (Water
Quality Variable)
Coliform count
(is used as an
indicator of poten-
tial for trans-
mission of virus)
Coliform count
Dissolved oxygen
BOD
Phosphates (alga
growth is faster)
Source of Pollutant
Human feceo
contaminated garbage
Human feces
(Stagnant water)
for ex. alga growth
which stabilizes water
surface
Ul
-------
Health impacts
(Damages)
Leptospirosis
(fever, muscular
pain, nausea)
Salmone llo s i s
(stomach upsets,
diarrhea, chills,
fever)
Minamata disease
(mercury poisoning)
(weakening of mus-
cles, loss of vision,
paralysis, coma
death)
Method of Transmission
(4) Bodily contact with
water
(Ib) 2b) contaminated
water or food supply
(2a) food chain such as
in fish, methyl mercury
is concentrated in food
chains because it is fat
soluble.
Pollutants
Microscopic parasites
- leptospira
Salmonellae bacteria
which breed in food or
water
Mercury (Primarily in
the form of methyl
mercury)
Indicator (Water
Quality Variable)
Coliform count
Coliform. count
Measure mercury
directly in water
(or fish)
Source of Pollutant.
Urine of infected
animals
Garbage, human feces
Industrial discharges
-------
Health impacts
(Damages)
Renal effects
itai - itai
possibly hyper-
tension
(cadmium effects
both acute and
chronic)
(cancer has been
produced in ani-
mals)
Methemo globinemia
(reduces ability of
the blood to trans-
£ port oxygen)
Endemic f lucres is
dental and skeletal
(chronic toxic effects
on tooth enamel and
bones; increased
density of bone, stiff-
ness of spine, limita-
tion of movement)
Method of Transmission
(2a) - through the food
chain
Pollutants
Indicator (Water
Quality Variable)
Source of Pollutant
Cadmium
Measure cadmium Industrial discharges
(la) - through water
supply
(la) through water supply
(also food supply)
Nitrites and nitrates
Fluoride
Measure nitrites
and nitrates
directly
Measure fluoride
directly
Industrial discharges
and agricultural
runoff
Fluoride is naturally
occurring in water.
(However this level may
be increased by addi-
tional fluorides in the
atmosphere (such as
from gaseous industrial
wastes) acting to in-
crease the fluoride level
of rain or precipitation)
-------
Health impacts
(Damages)
Amoebic dysentery
- acute effects
(even death)
Kidney stones
Method of Transmission
(1-b) Water supply
(la) Water supply
Pollutants
Endornebia histolytic
cysts
Dissolved solids
Indicator (Water
Quality Variable)
Coliform count
Dissolved solids
Source of Pollutant
Human feces
Industrial discharges
irrigation return
flows
Coronary heart
disease and
cardiovascular
disease
(la) Water supply
Hardness of the
water
Ha rdne s s of the
water
Naturally occurring
plus industrial
pollution
oo
-------
Health impacts
(Damages) _
Offensive tastes
and odor - both
an esthetic and
toxicological
effect may result
from the sub-
stances
Method of Transmission
(1) Water supply
Pollutants
Insecticides and organic
compounds (for ex.
phenols)
Indicator (Water
Quality Variable)
Taster-panels are
used and analytical
isolation techniques,
that have been con-
sidered for taste-
and-odor study of
water include dis-
tillation and a car-
bon adsorption
method
Source of Pollutant
Insecticides from agri-
cultural sources and trace
trace organics and
chemical compounds
(from industrial dis-
charges ?)
sO
-------
Possible Procedures and Data Sources
In order to evaluate adequately the major health impacts
(and the costs) associated with water quality degradation in the
United States, the following tasks will have to be completed:
1. Data concerning the incidence, location, morbidity
and mortality rates of the major diseases which are
believed to be related to water quality will be col-
lected from health statistics published by the Public
Health Service and other sources. Representative
sources of data on water-related diseases are:
(a) Morbidity and Mortality; Weekly Report, Center
for Disease Control, Atlanta, Ga. , U.S.D.H.E.W.
Vol. 20, No. 53, Annual Supplement, Summary, 1971.
This is the most recent yearly summary in a series .
It gives the reported incidence of notifiable diseases
in the United States for 1962-1971, the deaths from
specified notifiable diseases for 1959-1968 and
deaths from selected non-notifiable acute diseases
for 1959-1968. Cases of diseases are also reported
by month and by geographic region and state.
(b) Morbidity and Mortality^ Weekly Report, Center for
Disease Control, Atlanta, Ga. , U.S.D.H.E.W., Vol.
21, No. 42 (for week ending October 21, 1972).
This is a weekly report which can be used to obtain
current data on incidence of notifiable diseases.
(c) Weibel, S.R., Dixon, F.R., Weidner, R.B. and
McCabe, L.J. Waterborne-Disease Outbreaks,
1946-1960, Journal of the American Water Works
Assoc., 56, 947, (1964) ~
(d) Hepatitis Surveillance, Report No. 19, Communicable
Disease Center, June 30, 1964.
(e) Shigella Surveillance, Report No. 26, Center for
Disease Control, April, 1971.
170
-------
2. Methods of assessing the incidence of various diseases
over time as related to specific water quality variables
must be developed.
(a) Plots of the number of cases of these water-related
diseases vs time may be constructed to show trends
in such diseases over a time period (perhaps the last
ten years),
(b) Plots of appropriate water quality variables (for
example, the coliform count, see below) which are
considered reliable indicators of specific disease-
associated variables vs time will be constructed
and then shown on the same graphs. These graphs
can be done for specific locations in the United States
as well as for the nation as a whole.
(c) Correlation or multiple regression analysis of
incidence of diseases and water quality variables
can be used to establish relationship between
disease incidence and water quality. For example,
the coliform count can be used as an indicator
variable for diseases such as hepatitis. As a first
approximation the virus concentration may be
assumed to be directly proportional to the coliform
count. This is the logical assumption to make in
relating surface water quality to number of infectious
hepatitis cases (7).
(d) Sources of water quality variable data which can be
used are:
(1) Storet, Storage and Retrieval System for Water
Duality Data, Environmental Protection Agency,
1972.
(2) Water Resources Data for Kansas (also available
for other states, Part 2. Water Quality Records,
United States Department of the Interior. Geolog-
ical Survey, (1967).
(3) Water Pollution Surveillance System, Annual Com-
pilation, Public Health Service, D.H.E.W. , Volumes
available for 1957-58 through 1962-63.
171
-------
3, Costs associated with specific water-related diseases
will be estimated. Both direct and indirect costs of
illnesses will be considered. These costs include
work-days lost, medical care costs and such intangibles
as pain and suffering and disruption of family life and
goals. Other considerations such as the economic cost
of mortality rates associated with these diseases must
also be included. (See references 8 and 9). Estimates
of marginal costs or damages will be made wherever
appropriate data is presently available. Where a strong
correlation between a water quality variable and a spec-
ific health effect is found, the health costs associated
with that effect will be related to the specific water
quality variable to obtain marginal costs.
Summa r y
While there is substantial evidence relating to various diseases
and adverse health impacts in general, to drinking water quality,
many studies have indicated that many of these impact initiate from
untreated groundwater or inadequate control of present treatment
strategies. Exhibit B-4 presents the percentage distribution of
sources of water borne diseases in the United States, 1946-1960.
This summary would seem to indicate that proper surveillance of
present treatment strategies and perhaps chlorination of currently
untreated sources is the least cost treatment strategy.
172
-------
Exhibit B-4. Percentage distribution of sources of waterborne
disease in the United States, 1946-60
Source
Untreated surface water
Untreated ground water
Contamination of reservoir or cistern
Contamination of collection or conduit
system
Inadequate control of treatment
Contamination of distribution system
Miscellaneous
Total
Outbreaks
Percent
9.6
41.7
1.3
3.1
15.4
16.7
12. Z
100.0
Cases
Percent
3.2
33.9
0.7
4.6
41.4
1Z.9
3.3
100.0
Source: The Nation's Water Resources^ United States Water
Resources Council, Washington, D. C., 1968., p. 5-4-1.
173
-------
References Cited
(1) la Riviere, J.W.M. : American ociety for Microbiology
72nd annual meeting, April 25, 1972, Philadelphia, Pa., American
Microbiology Society News, 38, No. 10:536, 1972.
(2) Weibel, S.R., Dixon, F.R., Weidner, R.B. and McCabe, L.J.:
Waterborne-disease outbreaks, 1946-1960, Journal of the American
Water Works Association, 56: 947-958, 1964~
(3) Dee, Norbert et al. : Environmental Evaluationjaystem for Water
Resource Planning, Bureau oj^ Reclamation, U.£3. Dept. of Interior.
January, 1972.
(4) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Center for Disease Control,
Vol. 21, No. 31: p. 263-4.
(5) Shigilla Surveillance, Fourth quarter, 1970, Center for Disease
Control, Report No. 26, April, 1971.
(6) Morbidity and Mortality, Weekly Report, Center for Disease
Control, p. 379, November 4, 1972.
(7) Journal of Sanitary Engineering Division, American Society
of Civil Engineers, 96:121, February, 1970.
(8) Rice, Dorothy P. Estimating the Cost of Illness, Health Economics
Series No. 6, U.S. Dept. H.EW. , Public Health Service Publication
No. 947-6, May, 1966.
This publication lists direct costs of illnesses as expenditures
for prevention, treatment, detection, rehabilitation, research,
training and capital investment in medical facilities. The in-
direct costs include loss of output to the economy due to morbidity
and mortality. Estimating procedures for both types of costs
are summarized in this book.
(9) Acute Conditions; Incidence and Associated Disability, United
States-July 1969-June 1970, D.H.E.W. Publication No. (HSM)
73-1503, National Center for Health Statistics, Rockville, Md. ,
August, 1972.
174
-------
APPENDIX C
Specific Pollutants
The following material presents a partial listing of what
are considered to be the damaging pollutants. An accurate assess-
ment and assignment of priorities is, of course, impossible with-
out a detailed assessment of the damage potential of each individual
pollutant. The following list of pollutants must, therefore, be in-
terpreted as rather subjective and includes only some of the pollutants
listed in Appendix A. Also included is the potential damage resulting
from these pollutants, their most common source and the treatment
required for their removal.
Exhibit C-l. Specific Pollutants
I. BOD, DO, and Coliform
II. Inorganic Phosphate (especially where lakes and
reservoirs are being considered)
III. Inorganic Nitrogen
IV. Total Dissolved Solids
V. Turbidity, pH
VI. Temperature
VII. Pesticides and Toxic Substances
175
-------
I. Dissolved Oxygen, Biochemical Oxygen Demand, and Coliform.
Count:
(A) Sources
The most generally accepted single criterion of pollu-
tion is the dissolved oxygen (DO) content of the stream. Under
favorable nonpolluted conditions, this may approach the saturation
value, or may even exceed saturation because of photosynthesis
or oxygen generation in the stream.
The DO saturation value is low; it depends on temperature,
and is only 14 mg/liter at the freezing point, less at usual stream
temperatures. This implies that the reserve of available DO, to
take care of bio-oxidation of organic wastes, is not great and is
easily depleted. Organic wastes are generally characterized in
terms of their biochemical oxygen demand (BOD); BOD is a
measure of the oxygen consumed during biological oxidation.
If large quantities of organic wastes are discharged into a
stream, the dissolved oxygen in the stream may be rapidly
depleted. These organic wastes occur in large quantities
in industrial, and municipal waste waters.
Coliform organisms are present in large quantities in
the feces and urine of warmblooded animals. They are present
in water because of discharges of inadequately treated sewage
and because they reproduce when organic wastes are present
in water.
Soil aeration and oxygen availability is also a factor
deterring plant growth if water having high BOD values is
used although no specific information is available.
(B) Damages
Total depletion of DO lends to nuisance conditions,
including fish kills, bad odors and offensive appearances;
even partial depletion may cause fish kills and render the
stream unfit for its natural life forms.
Coliform counts in water samples, especially fecal
coliform, provide a good indication of the level of potential
water-borne pathogens capable of infecting man. Diseases
can be transmitted from water to man in a number of ways
{see section on Health).
176
-------
(C) Treatment
Biological purification is widely used for treatment
of waste water containing dissolved organic matter. There
are two broad types of bio-oxidation equipment, trickling
filters and activated sludge. Additional treatment can be
obtained with carbon adsorption (tertiary treatment).
Chemical agents such as ozone, chlorine dioxide,
and chlorine, which are capable of oxidative reaction with
organic compound may cause disinfection by direct chemical
degradation of fecal coliforms, virus and pathogenic bacteria.
II. Inorganic Phosphate
(A) Sources
Prior to the development of synthetic detergents, most
of the inorganic phosphate was contributed by human waste as
a result of metabolic processes. The average amount of phos-
phorus released per person in the United States is considered
to be about 1. 5 G/day.
Many synthetic detergents contain from 12 to 13 percent
phosphorus or over 50 percent of polyphosphates. It has been
estimated from sales of polyphosphates to the detergent industry
that domestic sewage probably contains from two to three times
as much inorganic phosphorus at the present time as it did before
synthetic detergents became widely used.
Farm animals, poultry manures and agricultural runoffs
also contribute some inorganic phosphate.
(B) Damage Effects
Phosphorus and nitrogen are both essential for the growth
of algae. Limitation in the amounts of these elements is usually
the factor that controls their rate of growth. Where both nitrogen
and phosphorus are plentiful, algal blooms occur which may pro-
duce a variety of nuisance conditions. The critical level for phos-
phorus has been established as somewhere near 0.01 mg/1.
177
-------
At concentration of complex phosphates of the order
of 100 mg/1, difficulties with coagulation are experienced.
(C) Treatment
Inorganic phosphates can be removed by a number of
methods. Among them, chemical coagulation is the most
common way of removing inorganic phosphates, The function
of chemical coagulation may be the removal of suspended
solids by destabilization of colloids to increase the settling
velocity of settleable material, or removal of soluble in-
organic compounds, such as phosphorus, by chemical pre-
cipitation or adsorption on chemical floe. The inorganic
coagulants commonly used in wastewater coagulation are
aluminum salts such as aluminum sulfate (alnm), lime, or
iron salts such as ferric chloride. Polymeric organic
coagulants are also used either as primary coagulants or
coagulant aids. More than 99 percent removal of phosphorus
has been obtained and effluent qualities of 0.2 to 0.6 mg/1
have been reported at South Lake Tahoe.
III. Inorganic Nitrogen
(A) Sources
Nitrogen compounds are released in human waste
products. Urine contains the nitrogen resulting from the
metaolic breakdown of proteins. Also the feces of animals
contain appreciable amounts of unassimilated protein matter.
The other sources of nitrogen come from agricultural runoff
and industrial wastes.
(B) Damages
Nitrites and nitrates are dangerous to humans if taken
in excess. It was reported first in 1945 that infants who drank
water polluted with 140 mg per liter of nitrate-nitrogen and
0.4 mg per liter of nitrite-nitrogen showed signs of dangerous
178
-------
blood changes (methemoglobinerrvia). Experiments with min-
nows indicate that water containing 50 mg per liter of sodium
nitrite is fatal to these fish in fourteen days. High concentra-
tions of nitrates in waste water effluent act as a fertilizer
and stimulate the growth of planktonic organisms and water-
growing weeds, To a certain degree, this increase of plank-
tonic growth with the accompanying development of fishfood
organisms brings about an increase in fish production. As
mentioned previously, "where both nitrogen and phosphorus
are plentiful, alga blooms occur which may produce a variety
of nuisance conditions.
(C) Treatment
Three principal methods for removal of nitrogen from
wastewater are ammonia stripping, selective ion exchange,
and microbial denitrification. Of these, ammonia stripping
is by far the cheapest, simplest, and easiest to control.
Selective ion exchange is a reliable method, but'a fairly
complex one, and, at the present stage of development,
appears to be rather costly. Microbial denitrification is
inexpensive, but the process is difficult to sustain and control.
IV. Dissolved Solids
(A) Sources
Dissolved solids are mainly inorganic salts. The most
important ones are chlorides, calcium and magnesium which
are related to water hardness, and many other solutes. In-
organic salts arise from all sources--urban, industrial, agri-
cultural, and natural; however, the largest portion comes from
industrial sources, particularly crude petroleum production,
the manufacture of soda ash and other chemicals. Unlike other
types, these wastes are relatively stable and do not decompose,
decay, or dissipate.
179
-------
(B) Damages
Water with total dissolved solids (TDS) less than about
500 ing/liter are used by farmers without awareness of any
salinity problem. Also without dilution from precipitation
or an alternative supply, water with TDS of about 5000 mg/
liter usually have little value for irrigation. Within these
limits, the value of the water appears to decrease as the
salinity increases. Where water is to be used regularly
for the irrigation of relatively impervious soil, its value is
limited if the TDS is in the range of 2000 mg/liter. Drinking
water standards recommend that total dissolved solids not
exceed 500 mg/1 where other more suitable water supplies
are available. The desired value is less than 200 mg/liter.
High total dissolved solids are objectionable because of
physiological effects and mineral taste. High concentrations
of mineral salts, particularly sulfates and chlorides, are
associated with corrosion damage in water systems and in-
dustrial facilities.
Scaling occurs when calcium or magnesium compounds
in the water (water hardness) precipitate and adhere to boiler
internal surfaces. These hardness compounds become less
soluble as temperature increases, causing them to separate
from solution. This scaling causes damage to heat transfer
surface by decreasing the heat exchange capability. The re-
sult is overheating of tubes, followed by failure and equipment
damage.
(C) Treatment
Hard waters are often softened by adding sufficient
quantities of lime and soda ash to precipitate the calcium and
magnesium as calcium carbonate and magnesium hydroxide.
Ion exchange, veversis osmosis, electrodialysis, freezing,
distillation and other desalination processes are also used
for removing dissolved solids. These processes are rela-
tively expensive.
180
-------
V. Turbidity and pH
(A) Sources
The term turbid is applied to waters containing suspended
matter that interferes with the passage of light through the water
or in which visual depth is restricted. The turbidity may be
caused by a wide variety of suspended materials, which range
in size from colloidal to coarse dispersions, depending upon
the degree of turbulence. As rivers descend from mountain
areas onto the plains, they receive contributions of turbidity
from farming and other operations that disturb the soil. Under
flood conditions, great amounts of topsoil are washed to re-
ceiving streams. Much of this material is inorganic in nature
but considerable amounts of organic matter are included.
The domestic waste may add great quantities of organic and
some inorganic materials that contribute turbidity. Certain
industrial wastes may add large amounts of organic substances
and other inorganic substances that produce turbidity. Street
washings contribute much inorganic and some organic turbidity.
Most of the acid or alkali content comes from many
industrial wastes.
(B) Damage
Any turbidity in the drinking water is automatically
associated with increased filtration in industrial and municipal
preuse treatment processes.
Filtration of water is rendered more difficult and costly
when turbidity increases. The use of slow sand filters has be-
come impractical in most areas because high turbidity shortens
filter runs and increases cleaning costs. In turbid waters,
most of the harmful organisms are exposed to the action of
the disinfectant. However, in cases in which turbidity is
caused by sewage solids, many of the pathogenic organisms
maybe encased in the particles and protected from the disin-
fectants. For this and aesthetic reasons the United States
Public Health Service has placed a limit of five units of tur-
bidity as the maximum amount allowable in public water supplies,
181
-------
In addition to increased municipal and industrial
costs turbidity further reduces the esthetic value of streams
and lakes.
Either a high or a low pH maybe damaging, causing fish
kills and general sterility in natural streams, and inactivating
the essential microorganisms in sewage treatment processes.
Waste of low pH are corrosive to steel and concrete structures
in waterways or sewage systems.
The lacrimal fluid of the human eye has a normal pH of
approximately 7.4 and a very high buffering capacity, due
primarily to the presence of buffering agents of the complex
organic type. As is true of many organic buffering agents,
those of the lacrimal fluid are able to maintain the pH within
a very narrow range until their buffering capacity is exhausted.
When the lacrimal fluid, through exhaustion of its buffering
capacity, is unable to adjust the immediate contact layers of
the fluid to a pH of 7.4, eye irritation results. A deviation
of no more than 0. 1 unit from the normal pH of the eye
may result in discomfort. Appreciable deviation will cause
severe pain.
(C) Treatment
Inorganic and organic colloidal suspensions in water
can be removed by chemical coagulation. The coagulation
process, as practiced in waste water treatment, involved
destabilization of the colloidal suspension follwed by f loc -
culation to generate large particles which can subsequently
be removed either by sedimentation, flotation, or filtration.
To eliminate the extremes of pH in wastewaters usual
chemical neutralization is applied.
182
-------
VI. Temperature
(A) Sources
While the contribution of heat from solar radiation
is important, the primary interest of the regulatory agencies
is with heat added to the environment from industrial pro-
cesses. Although the most significant source of thermal
pollution is steam-electrical generating activities, it should
be noted that the process industries which withdraw water
for cooling purposes also contribute waste heat to the environ-
ment. The amount of fresh water required for cooling con-
densers is estimated to increase from the 1955 usage of 60
billion gallons a day to 200 billion gallons -- one-sixth of the
freshwater in the United States--by 1988. This heat can often
be discharged either to the atmosphere or to water.
(B) Benefits and Damages
Temperature is one of the single most important factors
controlling the distribution and survival of aquatic organisms.
Temperature increase s affect fish directly by changing
physiological and behavioral processes, and indirectly by
changing some aspect of the environment on which fish de-
pend. Mayer (1914) suggested that high temperatures pro-
duced death in cold blooded animals by causing asphyxiation,
the oxygen being insufficient to sustain the increased metabolic
activity. Sudden changes in stream temperature, such as occur
because of a plant shut down in winter can also cause fish kills
and other damages.
Some heating of streams and rivers can be beneficial.
Fish grow faster at warmer temperatures. Melting of ice
on rivers can sometimes be desirable. Excessively high
temperature may lessen the pleasure of some water contact
sports, as well as be damaging to biota. It has been determined
that a person swimming expends energy at the rate of approxi-
mately 500 calories per hour. This energy must be dissipated
to the environment to avoid a rise in the deep body temperature.
When conduction is the principal means of heat transfer from
the body and exposure to the environmental conditions is pro-
longed, 90° F is the approximate limit for persons expending
minimal energy. High water temperature also reduces the
cooling efficiency of water used as industrial coolants.
183
-------
(C) Treatment
Thermal pollution of streams can be prevented by dig'
charging the waste heat elsewhere. Small man-made lakes
can sometimes be used where water cooling is economically
desirable.
VII. Pesticides
(A) Sources
Pesticides are materials used to prevent, destroy,
repel, or otherwise control objectionable insects, rodents,
plants, weeds, or other undesirable forms of life. Pesti-
cides may gain access to ground and surface water supplies
through percolation and runoff from treated areas.
(B) Damages
Some pesticides are toxic to fish and other aquatic
life at only a small fraction of a mg/1. Laboratory tests show
that many coastal fisheries are especially sensitive to the
toxic effects of low levels of pesticides. Oysters, for example,
will exist in the presence of DDT at levels as high as 0. 1 mg/1
in the environment. But at levels 1000 times less (0. 1 mg/1)
oyster growth or production would be only 20 percent of normal,
shrimp population would suffer a 20-percent mortality, and
menhaden would suffer a disastrous mortality. They also tend
to concentrate in aquatic plants and animals to values several
thousand times that occurring in the water in which they live.
Also, some pesticides are quite resistant to biological degra-
dation and persist in soils and water for long periods of time.
(C) Treatment
The presence of pesticides is difficult to handle. The
best way is to avoid them rather than to remove them.
184
-------
APPENDIX D
Critical Levels and Damage Thresholds
Many aspects of water quality management must proceed
by disaggregating the problem into manageable proportions. When
assessing the costs of pollution one must consider a variety of indi-
vidual water quality constituents. For this reason there is value
in presenting a variety of critical levels and damage thresholds by
beneficial uses. The following tables present a number of estab-
lished water quality guidelines and standards that have been adopted,
185
-------
Exhibit D-l. Guide for Evaluating the Quality of Water Used for
Contact Recreation
Quality factor Limiting Concentration
Fecal Coliform, MPN per 100 ml 200
Range of pH 6. 5 - 8.3
Temperature, maximum (°C) 30
Clarity A secchi disc is visible at a
minimum depth of 4 feet
Flotable oil and grease, mg/liter 5
Emulsified oil and grease, mg/liter 20
Suspended solids, mg/liter 100
Threshold odor number 256
Source: Report of the Committee on Water Quality Criteria, Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration, U. S. Department of
the Interior, p. 4.
186
-------
Exhibit D-2. Guide for Evaluating the Quality of Water Used for General
Recreation (Boating and Esthetic)
Quality factor Limiting Concentration
Fecal coliform, MPN per 100 ml
Range of pH 6
Total dissolved solids (TDS), mg/liter
Dissolved oxygen, minimum mg/liter
Carbon dioxide, mg/liter
Turbidity, JN
Phosphorus, mg/liter ) 100 (flowing stream)
(lakes or reservoirs
Flotable oil and grease, mg/liter
Emulsified oil and grease, mg/liter
Threshold odor number
187
-------
Exhibit D-3. Guide for Evaluating the Quality of Water Used for
Marine and Estuarine
Quality Factor
Limiting Concentration
Salinity change, maximu, %
Range of pH
Temperature change, maximum
Dissolved oxygen, mg/liter
± 10
6.7 - 8.5
1.5- summer
4 - fall, spring and winter
5
188
-------
Exhibit D-4
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
Substance
Preferable Limits Rejection Limits
Coliforms, MPN
Fecal colifortns, MPN
Arsenic, mg/1
Barium "
Boron "
Cadmium "
Chloride "
Chromium (hexavalent)
Copper "
Iron "
Manganese "
Lead "
Nitrate "
Selenium "
Silver "
Sulfate "
Total Dissolved Solids
Zinc "
Cyanide "
Phenols "
Turbidity, units
Color, units
Odor (threshold odor number)
Taste
0.01
250
1.0
0.3
0.05
45
250
500
5
0.01
0.001
USPHS
5
15
3
1
1
0.05
1.0
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.05
0.2
AWWA Goals
No odor
None objectionable
189
-------
Exhibit D-5
Summary of Specific Quality Characteristics of Surface Waters That Have Been Used as Sources for
Industrial Water Supplies
(Unless otherwise indicated, units are mg/l
Boiler makeup water
Characteristic
Silica (SiO,) —
Aluminum (Al)
Iron (Fe)
Manganese
-------
Exhibit D-6. Guides for evaluating recreational waters
Determination
Coliforms, MPN per 100 ml
Visible solids of sewage origin
ABS (detergent), mg/liter
Suspended solids, mg/liter
Flotable oil and grease, mg/liter
Emulsified oil and grease, mg/liter
Turbidity , silica scale units
Color, standard cobalt scale units
Threshold odor number
Range of pH
Temperature, maximum °C
Transparency, Secchi disk, ft
Water contact
Noticeable
threshold
1000*
None
1*
20*
0
10*
10'
15*
32*
6.5-9.0
30
. . ,
Limiting
threshold
t
None
2
100
5
20
50
100
256
6.0-10.0
50
. . .
Boating and
Noticeable
threshold
None
1*
20'
0
20*
20*
15*
32*
6.5-9.0
30
20*
aesthetic
Limiting
threshold
None
5
100
10
50
t
100
256
6.0-10.0
50
t
'Value not to be exceeded in more than 20 percent of 20 consecutive samples, nor in any 3 consecutive sample*.
tNo limiting concentration can be specified in the basis of epidemiologies) evidence, provided no fecal pollution
I* evident. (Note: Noticeable threshold represents the level at which people begin to notice and perhaps to complain.
Limiting threshold is the level at which recreational use of water is prohibited or seriously impaired.
INo concentration likely to be found in surface waters would impede use.
Source: California State Water Control Board, 1963
191
-------
Exhibit D-7. Guides for evaluating the quality of water
used by livestock
factor Threshold Limiting
tactof concentration' concentration!
Total dissolved solids (TDS), mg/liter 2500 5000
Cadmium, mg/liter 5
Calcium, mg/liter 500 1000
Magnesium, mg/liter 250 500:):
Sodium, mg/liter 1000 2000J
Arsenic, mg/liter 1
Bicarbonate, mg/liter 500 500
Chloride, mg/liter 1500 3000
Fluoride, mg/liter 1 6
Nitrate, mg/liter 200 400
Nitrite, mg/liter None None
Sulfate, mg/liter 500 1000J
Range of pH 6.0-8.5 5.6-9.0
•Threshold values represent concentrations at which poultry or sensitive animals might show slight effects from
prolonged use of such water. Lower concentrations are of little or no concern.
TLimitlng concentrations based on interim criteria. South Africa. Animals in lactation or production might show
definite adverse reactions.
tTotal magnesium compounds plus sodium sulfate should not exceed 50 percent of the total dissolved solids.
Source: California State Water Quality Control Board, 1963
192
-------
Exhibit D-8. Quality standards for water used for livestock
• Threshold Salinity Concentration, ppm.
Poultry 2,860
Pips 4,290
Horses 6,435
Cattle, dairy 7,150
Cattle, beef . 10,000
Adult dry sheep 7%. . . . • • 12,900
Source: Jour, of Agriculture of Western Australia, 1950
193
-------
Exhibit D-9. Limits of Boron in irrigation water
A. Permissible Limits
[Boron in parts per million]
Class of water
Excellent
Good
Permissible
Doubtful
Unsuitable
Sensitive
<0.33
0.33 to 0.67
0.67 to 1.00
1 .00 to 1 .25
> 1.25
Crop Group
Semitolerant
<0.67
0.67 to 1 .33
1.33 to?. 00
2.00 to 2.50
> 2.50
Tolerant
<1.00
1 .00 to 2.00
2. 00 to 3.00
3.00 to 3.75
> 3.75
B. Crop Groups of Boron Tolerance
[In each group, the plants first named are considered as being more tolerant; the last named, more sensitive.]
Sensitive
Pecan
Walnut (Black; and Persian, or
English)
Jerusalem-artichoke
Navy bean
American elm
Ptum
Pear
Apple
Grape (Sultanina and Malaga)
Kadota fig
Persimmon
Cherry
Peach
Apricot
Thornless blackberry
Orange
Avocado
Grapefruit
Lemon
Semitolerant
Sunflower (native)
Potato
Cotton (Acala and Pi ma)
Tomato
Sweetpea
Radish
Field pea
Ragged Robin rose
Olive
Barley
Wheat
Corn
Milo
Oat
Zinnia
Pumpkm
Bell pepper
Sweet potato
Lima bean
Tolerant
Athel (Tamarix aphyllaf
Asparagus
Palm (Phoenix canarientis)
Date palm (P. dacty literal
Sugar beet
Mangel
Garden beet
Alfalfa
Gladiolus
Broadbean
Onion
Turnip
Cabbage
Lettuce
Carrot
Source: U. S. Department of Agriculture
194
-------
Exhibit D-10.
Guides for evaluating the quality of water
used for irrigation
[MPN is most probable number. Sodium adsorption ratio is defined by the formula SAR=Na/V(Ca+Mg)/2 where the
concentrations are expressed in milliequivalents per liter. Residual sodium carbonate is the sum of the equivalents
of normal carbonate and bicarbonate minus the sum of the equivalents of calcium and magnesium.)
Quality factor
Threshold
concentration*
Limiting
concentrationt
Coliform organisms, MPN per 100 ml
Total dissolved solids (TDS), mg/liter
Electrical conductivity, ^mhos/cm
Range of pH
Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR)
Residual sodium carbonate (RSC), meq
Arsenic, mg/liter
Boron, mg/liter
Chloride, mg/liter
Sulfate, mg/liter
Copper, mg/liter
1000*
500J
750$
7.0-8.5
6.0*
1.25*
1.0
0.51
100$
200J
0.11
§
1500|
2250*
6.0-9.0
15
2.5
5.0
2.0
350
1000
1.0
'Threshold values at which irrigator might become concerned about water quality and might consider using additional
water for leaching. Below these values, water should be satisfactory for almost all crops and almost any arable soil.
tUmiting values at which the yield of high-value crops might be reduced drastically, or at which an irrigator might be
'orced to less valuable crops.
t Values not to be exceeded more than 20 percent of any 20 consecutive samples, nor in any 3 consecutive samples.
Th« frequency of sampling should be specified.
§ Aside from fruits and vegetables which are likely to be eaten raw, no limits can be specified. For such crops, the
reshold concentration would be limiting.
Source: Calif. State Water Quality Control Board, 1963
195
-------
Exhibit D-ll,
Guides for evaluating the quality of water
for aquatic life
Threshold concentration*
Determination
Total dissolved solid* (TDS), mg/liter
Electrical conductivity, ^mhos/cm @ 25 C
Temperature, maximum °C
Maximum for salmonoid fish
Range of pH
Dissolved oxygen (D.O.), minimum mg/liter
Fiottble oil and grease, mg/liter
Emulsified oil and grease, mg/liter
Detergent, ABS, mg/liter
Ammonia (free), mg/liter
Arsenic, mg/liter
Barium, mg/liter
Cadmium, mg/liter
Carbon dioxide (free), mg/liter
Chlorine (free), mg/liter
Chromium, hexavalent, mg/liter
Copper, mg/liter
Cyanide, mg/liter
Fluoride, mg/liter
Lead, mg/liter
Mercury, mg/liter
Nickel, mg/liter
Phenolic compounds, as phenol, mg/liter
Silver, mg/llter
Sulfide, dissolved, mg/liter
Zinc, mg/llter
Freshwater
2000t
3000 1
34
23
6.5-8.5
6. Of
0
10T
2.0
0.5 1
LOT
S.OT
0.01 T
1.0
0.02
0.05T
0.02T
0.02T
1.5T
0.1 T
0.01
o.ost
1.0
0.01
0.5t
0.1
Saltwater
34
23
6.5-9.0
5.0:):
OT
10T
2.0
LOT
O.OST
0.02 T
0.02T
1.5T
O.IT
0.01
0.01
0.5T
•Threshold concentration is value that normally might not be deleterious to fish life. Waters that do not exceed these
values should be suitable habitats for mixed fauna and flora.
tValues not to be exceeded more than 20 percent of any 20 consecutive samples, nor in any 3 consecutive samples.
Other values should never be exceeded. Frequency of sampling should be specified.
^Dissolved oxygen concentrations should not fall below 5.0 mg/liter more than 20 percent of the time and never below
2.0 mg/liter. (Note: Recent data indicate also that rate of change of oxygen tension is an important factor, and that diurnal
changes In D.O. may, in sewage-polluted water, render the value of 5.0 of questionable merit.)
Source: Calif. State Water Quality Control Board, 1963
196
-------
Exhibit D-12. Observed lethal concentration of selected
chemicals in aquatic environments
Chemical
ABS (100 percent)
A8S (100 percent)
Household syndets
Alkyl sulfate
LAS (C 12)
LAS (C14)
Acetic acid
Alum
Ammonia
Ammonia
Sodium arsenite
Sodium arsenate
Barium chloride
Barium chloride
Cadmium chloride
Cadmium nitrate
CO,
CO
Chloramine
Chlorine
Chromic acid
Copper sulfate
Copper nitrate
Cyanogen chloride
H,S
HCt
HCI
Lead nitrate
Mercuric chloride
Nickel nitrate
Nitric acid
Oxygen
Phenol
Phenol
Potassium chromate
Potassium cyanide
Sodium cyanide
Silver nitrate
Sodium fluoride
Sodium sulfide
Zinc sulfate
Zinc sulfate
Pesticides
1 . Chlorinated hydrocarbons
A Aldrin
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
DDT
BHC
BHC
Chlordane
Chlordane
Dieldrin
Dieldrin
Oieldr.-1
Organism tested
Fathead minnow
Bluegitls
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Bluegill fingerlings
Bluegill fingerlings
Goldfish
Goldfish
Goldfish
Perch, roach, 1
rainbow trout )
Minnow
Minnow
Goldfish
Salmon
Goldfish
Goldfish
Various species
Various species
Brown trout fry
Rainbow trout
Goldfish
Stickleback
Stickleback
Goldfish
Goldfish
Stickleback
Goldfish
Minnow, stickleback, (
brown trout )
Stickleback
Stickleback
Minnow
Rainbow trout
Rainbow trout
Perch
Rainbow trout
Rainbow trout
Stickleback
Stickleback
Goldfish
Brown trout
Stickleback
Rainbow trout
Goldfish
Goldfish
Rainbow trout
Salmon
Brook trout
Minnow, guppy
Stoneflies ( species)
Goldfish
Rainbow trout
Goldfish
Rainbow trout
Goldfish
Bluegill
Rainbow trout
Lethal concentration, mg/liter
3.5-4.5
4.2^.4
39-61
5.1-5.9
3
0.6
423
100
2-2.5 NH,
3N
17.8 As
234 As
5000
158
0.017
0.3 Cd
100-200
1 5
0.06
0.03-0.08
200
0.03 Cu
0.02 Cu
1
10
pHA.8
PH4.0
0.33 Pb
0.01 Hg
1 Ni
pH 5.0
3 cc/liter
6
9
75
0.13 Cn
1.04Cn
70 K
1000
15
0.3 Zn
0.5
0.028
0.027
0.5-0.32
0.08
0.032
0.75 ppb
0.32-1.8
2.3
3
0.082
0.5
0.037
0.008
0.05
Exposure time, hr
96
96
96
96
96
96
20
12-96
24-96
2-20
36
15
12-17
9-18
190
. . .
MO
. . .
60-84
160
192
6-48
96
240
4-6
• • •
204
156
. . .
. . .
3
1
60
2
2
154
60-102
. . .
120
64
96
96
24-36
36
36
29
96
96
96
96
24
96
96
24 __
197
-------
Exhibit D-12 (continued)
Chemical
Endrin
Endrin
Endrin
Endrin
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Methoxychlor
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
Toxaphene
Toxaphene
Toxaphene
Toxaphene
Toxaphene
2. Organic phosphates
Chlorothion
Dipterex
EPN
Guthion
Guthion
Malathion
Parathion
TEPP
3. Herbicides
Weedex
Weeda Zol
Weeda Zol T.L.
Simazine
(no plants present)
Atrazine (A361)
(plants present)
Atrazine in Gesaprime
4. Baciericides
Algibiol
Soricide tetraminol
Organism tested
Goldfish
Carp
Fathead minnow
Various species
Stoneflies (species)
Rainbow trout
Goldfish
Bluegill
Redear sun fish
Rainbow trout
Goldfish
Rainbow trout
Goldfish
Carp
Goldfish
Goldfish
Minnows
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Cathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Bluegill
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Young roach )
and trench }
Minnow
Minnow
Minnow
Minnow
Minnow
Lethal concentration, mg/iiter
0.0019
0.14
0.001
0.03-0.05 ppb
0.32-2.4 ppb
0.25
0.23
0.019
0.017
0.05
0.056
0.05
0.0056
0.1
0.2
0.04
0.2
3.2
180
0.2
0.093
0.005
12.5
1.4-2.7
1.7
40-80
15-30
20-40
0.5
5.0
3.75
20
8
Exposuretime.hr
96
48
96
96
24
96
96
96
24
96
24
96
24
170
24
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
1 month
1 month
1 month
< 3 days
24
24
24
48
Source: McGauhey, Engineering Management of Water Quality,
McGraw-Hill, copyright 1968
198
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1973-546-3l2/l->3 1-3
-------
SELECTED WATER
RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
I. RepotitfK
2.
w
RESEARCH NEEDS AND PRIORITIES:
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL BENEFITS AND COSTS VOL. II
"! David L. Jordening and James K. Allwood
Development Planning and Research Associates
200 Research Drive
Manhattan, Kansas 66502
ifit Orgsni • itioa ' •' ' ' "'* * .' ''
J. Report Date
6. ' -',-•-
t.
21-AQJ-05
68-01-0744
g. Type Sf Report and
' Period Covered
Environmental Protection Agency report number,
EPA-600/5-73-008b, October 1973.
This report includes foremost a specification of research needs and priori-
ties Involving water pollution control costs and benefits. A series of theoretic-
al and methodological research needs are presented. Water quality management is
required in a dynamic setting and over a broad range of hydrologic and economic
conditions. The common property resource aspects of the problem with the preval-
ence of externalities complicates the issues involved. These and other factors
embedded in the research needs are discussed. A major development of a cost-
minimization methodological approach for water quality management is also presented.
Within this framework the indicated research needs are more readily identified
and explained. An important distinction is made between the economic costs of
ollution and the costs of pollution abatement. The economic costs of pollution
such as damages, efficiency reductions, increased production expenses, process
changes and opportunity costs are a function of water quality, whereas pollution
abatement costs are typically a function of the degree of pollution control. For
comparable cost comparisons, a transformation of pollution abatement costs in
terms of water quality is desired. This transformation need and problem is dis-
cussed in detail. Finally, in a series of technical appendicies, the following
subjects are discussed: (1) water pollution control cost and benefit estimates,
(2) water quality associated health impacts.
//a. Descriptors
Water quality, Benefits, Costs, Benefit-Cost Analysis, Bibliographies, Literature,
Economics
17b. Identifiers
CO WKR fit-Id <£
Stad To:
WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR <-tnTER
WASHINGTON. O C 2O24O
Bernadette F. Freeman
i-:n Environmental Protection Agency
------- |