MAY 1961


       This is a collection of papers to be given at the first

Public Health Service Water Resources Conference.  They are being

sent to you in order that you may have an opportunity to read and

study them prior to the meeting and thus be better able to enter

into their discussion.  By so participating, you will contribute

to the development of policies and procedures that we hope will

ultimately be those of the Public Health Service, and you will

assist in making this conference a success.

                        PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE

                      WATER RESOURCES CONFERENCE

                       May 24, 25, and 26, 1961
Dallas Hotel                                              Dallas, Texas

May 24. 1961

 9:00 -  9:05 a.m.    Opening Remarks
                            Jerome H. Svore

 9:05 -  9:15 a.m.    Welcome
                            E. C. Warkentin

                            First Session
                  Moderator - Robert W. Haywood, Jr.

 9:15 -  9:45 a.m.    Water Resources Planning - Positive versus
                      Negative Approach
                            Keith S. Krause

 9:45 - 10:15 a.m.    Discussion - Leader: Lester M. Klashman

10:15 - 10:30 a.m.    Coffee Break

10:30 - 11:00 a.m.    Population Forecasting - Methodologies and Merits
                            William E. Torget

11:00 - 11:30 a.m.    Discussion - Leader: Richard S. Green

11:30 - 11:45 a.m.    Conclusions

                            Second Session
                   Moderator - Paul W. Eastman, Jr.

 1:15 -  1:45 p.m.    Growth Factors in Economic Base Studies
                            John H. Davidson

 1:45 -  2:15 p.m.    Discussion - Leader:  James J. Flannery

 2:15 -  2:30 p.m.    Conclusions

 2:30 -  2:45 p.m.    Coffee Break

 2:45 -  3:15 p.m.    Location Factors
                            Charles H. Hajinian

 3:15 -  4:00 p.m.    Discussion - Leader: David A. Robertson

 4:00 -  4:15 p.m.    Conclusions

 6:30 -  7:30 p.m.    Dinner - Speaker:  Dr. Richard F. Boyd

Mav 25. 1961
 9:15 -  9:45 a.m.



       10:30 a.m.

       10:45 a.m.

       11:00 a.m.

       11:30 a.m.
11:30 - 12:00 noon

12:00 - 12:15 p.m.
                   Third Session
              Moderator - H. W. Poston

             Projecting Water Requirements in the Boondocks
                   Walter R. Hager

             Discussion - Leader:  Francis A. Jacocks


             Coffee Break

             Agriculture - Effects on Water Demands
                   Willis G. Eichberger

             Discussion - Leader: Garry L. Fisk

1:30 -  2:00 p.m.
 2:00 -

 2:30 -

 2:45 -

 3:00 -
2:30 p.m.

2:45 p.m.

3:00 p.m.

3:30 p.m.
 3:30 -  4:00 p.m.

 4:00 -  4:15 p.m.
                            Fourth Session
                      Moderator - Kaarlo W. Nasi

                      Estimating Future Water Demand.
                            Charles R. Ownbey
                     Discussion - Leader: Paul DeFalco, Jr.


                     Coffee Break

                     Must Water Treatment Be High Priced?
                           Earnest F. Gloyna

                     Discussion - Leaders Herbert C. Clare

May 26. 1961
8:30 -  9:00 a.m.

9:00 -  9:30 a.m.

9:30 -  9:45 a.m.
                            Fifth Session
                      Moderator - John R. Thoman

                      Must Stream Quality Be Maintained?
                            F. W. Kittrell

                      Discussion - Leader: W. W. Towne



Mav 26. 1961

 9:45 - 10:00 a.m.    Coffee Break

10:00 - 10:30 a.m.    Principles and Policies for the Evaluation and
                      Reimbursement of Water Supply and Pollution Abate-
                      ment Benefits from Federal Storage Projects
                            M. E. Scheidt

10:30 - 11:00 a.m.    Discussion - Leader: Lloyd W. Gebhardt

11:00 - 11:15 a.m.    Conclusions

11:15 - 11:45 a.m.    Should the Public Health Service Take a Stand
                      and Make Secondary Treatment Mandatory?
                            William H. Davis

11:45 - 12:15 p.m.    Discussion - Leader: John F. Smouse

12:15 - 12:30 p.m.    Conclusions

12:45 p.m.            Luncheon
                            Sixth Session
                     Moderator - Jerome H. Svore

1:30 p.m.             A Review of Conclusions and Agreements for
                      Future Action
                            Leonard B. Dworsky





                        William E. Torget
                     Water Resources Section
          Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control
                Public Health Service, Region VII
         U. S. Department of Health, Education, & Welfare

       One of our primary tasks is to forecast the water demand for

a designated area half a century hence.  The water demand is a function

of the number of people and the activities of these people.  We will

concern ourselves here with the number of people.  We will further

limit our concern to the forecast of population for the larger cities.

This limitation, however, obviously necessitates a forecast of the

country and other major subdivisions.

       The task before us is to determine what will be the probable

population in a given metropolitan area 50 years from now.  Having

estimated that, then what is the probable error of this estimate?

The agency that does most of the forecasting - Bureau of the Census -

has this to say about its own forecasts:  "It should be borne in mind

that the projections to 1980 are all quite speculative; and that the

projections for the year 2000 are of the nature of a mathematical

exercise."  And we are required to go a decade or two beyond a point

that is already 20 years removed from a time that only a very specula-

tive forecast can be made.   It is little wonder why so many souls

become timid and attempt to shield themselves with a phrase such as,

"These are projections and not predictions," or else to predict such

a wide range of growth possibilities that the forecast cannot miss if

the city has a population explosion or a hydrogen explosion.

     We have no such escape clause.  We must come up with an

extrapolation, a projection, or a forecast (A forecast by any other

name is still a forecast and let's call it such).  Let's grant, with-

out apology, that the likelihood of forecasting with precision is

astronomically small.  Since we grant that an error in forecasting

will be made, then what data and knowledge can we use to minimize

the error?  Perhaps the best indicators will be past trends,; especially,

if .they 'have been relatively consistent.  Past trends may 
          What has the growth rate been for the total SMA

            population and what will it be in the future?

     Growth of the metropolitan population has been one of the most

conspicuous features of the population movement of the United States

during the first half of the 20th century.  For all decades the SMA

population has grown at a more rapid rate than that of the Nation.

                              Table 1

                  Percentage Increase in SMA*, and
                      Total National Population
                      for the decades 1910-1960

Decade                          SMA*               National Population

1910-20                         33.8                     14.9

1920-30                         32.1                     16.2

1930-40                          9.3                      7.2

1940-50                         26.0                     14.3

1950-60                         29.6                     18.9

* The SMA population for all decades is that residing in the
  geographic area that was defined as SMA in 1960.

      It is observed that the SMA population increase has been

relatively constant for the last 5 decades (ranging from 26-33 per

cent) with the exception of the depression decade.  The out-of-trend

population increase in the SMA population during the 1930's, was the

result of a low national increase and a restricted rural to urban

migration. The differential growth rate of the SMA and Non-SMA is

primarily explained by the marked migration into the SMA's.

      The growth trend of the total SMA population indicated in

Table 1, however, cannot be used to depict the average growth trend

of the SMA's because the base is changing; i.e., more cities are

included in the end of the decade than in the beginning of the decade.

When the data is standardized to exclude the population of those SMA's

that were added during the decade, the growth rate is more uniform.

Again, with the exception of the depression years, the average SMA

growth varied between a narrow range — from 21 to 26 per cent.

                              Table 2

                  Percentage Increase in SMA*, and
                     Total National Population
                     for the Decades 1910-1960

                                 Percentage Increase for Decade
SMA- 2
Non-SMA 's
National Total



*The SMA population for all decades is that which resided in the
 geographic area defined as SMA in 1960.  It includes, however, only
 the increase in the SMA's that meet the requirements for SMA in the
 beginning of each decade.  Hereafter this will be referred to as
 SMA-2.  Those cities that met the SMA criterion only at the end of
 each decade is included in the Non-SMA population.

      The apparent consistency of the SMA-2 population increase

during these 4 decades is an illusion and cannot be used in pre-

diction.  First, the national population increase varied and the

relative size of the source of migration (the Non-SMA population)

varied.  If the effect of these two factors are standardized by the

conditions which prevailed during the 1950-60 decade, the growth of

the SMA-2 population would show a declining trend.

                              Table 3

               Standardized SMA-2 Population Increase
                        by Decades 1910-1960

            Decade                       Percentage Increase

           1910-20                              33.1

           1920-30                              29.4

           1930-40                              27.0

           1940-50                              26.3

           1950-60                              24.5

      This decline in the rate of increase for the SMA-2 population

perforce must continue for the obvious reason that the relative size

of the Non-SMA is decreasing and hence one of the main sources  of

growth, i.e., migration from the Non-SMA, is becoming relatively

smaller and will, therefore, contribute relatively less to the  SMA-2

growth.  Table 4 demonstrates this.

                              Table 4
               Trend  in  the Ratio  of Non-SMA Population
                         to SMA-2  Population
                         by Decades 1910-1960
                 SMA Population
                 (in millions)
               at Beginning of
 (in millions)
at Beginning of
 Ratio of the
(migration pool)
to SMA Population
      Given these past 50-year trends, (1) what will be the forecast

in the total SMA population, and (2) what will be the forecast in-

crease in the growth of the SMA-2 population?  (A national population

of 380,000,000 in 2010 will be assumed.  Justification for the adoption

of this figure will be stated later.)  The total  SMA population,  which

increased 215 per cent during the last 50 years,  will increase 157

per cent to 300,000,000 the next 50 years.  The decrease in the rate

of increase will happen in spite of the fact that the national popula-

tion is assumed to increase a little more rapidly in the next 50 years

than it did in the previous 50 years.  The explanation is that one of

its primary sources of population,  the Non-SMA pool, is becoming

relatively smaller.  The SMA-2 population will witness a decline in

the rate of increase from 24 per cent in 1950-60 to 17.8 per cent

between 2000-10.  To assume that the present rate of SNA population

increase will continue, as many mistakenly do,  is tantamount to

assuming a national population of approximately 500,000,000.  Few

predict a forecast this high.  These forecasts  are based on pro-

jections shown on Figure 1.  Note the fairly consistent growth trends

of the past 50 years for both the SMA and Non-SMA population.
                               Table 5

                Trends and Forecast of SMA. Population
                        by Decades 1910-2010
                      (Population in millions)




















Per Cent







Total Adjusted
SMA2./ Population







Per Cent







 I/  Total SMA population the decade indicated.

 21  SMA population of those SMA's which qualified as SMA's the
     preceding decade.

 3/  The 24.4 per cent, for example, is derived from 43.9 • 35.3.



       The foregone analysis is not intended to be used to forecast

an individual SMA; it is only to establish a ceiling for the rate of

increase of the SMA's, and furthermore, to remind us that the rate

of increase of SMA's must decrease if we assume any national popula-

tion forecast short of approximately 500,000,000.

       Before turning our attention to the individual metropolitan

area, let's see if there are significant differential growth rates

among various size SMA's.  Do smaller ones grow more rapidly than

larger ones?  Do these cities slow down as they get larger?

       Is the rate of growth associated with size?  An answer to this

question can be approximated two ways.  First, we can group cities

into several size categories and see if the smaller ones grow at a

different rate than the larger ones.  This has obvious shortcomings

because the only factor being held constant is size, and size is not

the major determinant in the rate of growth.  Because many use this

technique, it is well to examine these trends.  A better measure,

because it would have greater predictive value, would be to determine

if the individual cities vary in rate of growth as they get larger.

This, too, is difficult to ascertain because the growth potential

varies between decades.  For example, in the 1930 decade, the

population of the country grew at less than half the rate of any of

the other decades studied; whereas, the recent decade witnessed the

greatest absolute, as well as relative, growth.  This obviously

affects and is affected by the growth rate of SMA's.  An examination

of the question is nevertheless worthwhile because it may lead us to

"ball park" figures.  If not, it is equally important to expose

erroneous forecast methods.

       The median growth rate is remarkably constant for the cities

in the 4-size classes, between 100 thousand and 1.6 million.  The

average for the 5 decades ranged from 17.2 per cent to 19.6 per cent.

There was greater variability, however, within a size class from one

decade to another.  Nevertheless, the range was not large.  The

cities under 100,000 and those over 1,600,000 grew at a slower rate.

The reason for the lower rate of increase for the smallest group is

that a disproportionately large part of their metropolitan area is

rural.  If the effect of this were eliminated, cities under 100,000

would grow at approximately 19 per cent also.  This data suggests

that size, within the limits mentioned, does not affect the rate of

growth.  The statement is equally true of individual cities.  Cities

between 100,000 and 800,000 do not decrease in the rate of growth

as they get larger.  The growth rate must be decreased for reasons

mentioned earlier (the relative migration from1 Uoti^SMA's is decreas-

ing) but not because the city is growing from, for example, 300,000

to 800,000.

                       Table 6

Population Increases in SMA1s of Varying Size-Classes

Mean of above
Excluding '30's
Including '30's























(new) 34

Total SMA














       Knowledge of the average growth rate and the correlation of

size and growth rate is useful but one cannot rest his forecasts on

these.  There are wide deviations from these averages.  While it is

true that one will miss the forecast on the total population of a

group of cities less if he uses the average, there are measures more

accurate for individual cities.  Let's next examine the extent of

the variation from the average.

       Is there a wide dispersion in growth rates among SMA's?

There is an extreme range in the rate of change.  Some more than

double during a ten year span, while others experience decreases.

The smaller SMA1 s have a greater disparity in the rate of growth

than larger cities.  Even the size group that had the least vari-

ability in the rate of growth during the 1950-60 decade -- the

800,000 to 1,600,000 class-- varied from a low of 15 per cent

increase to a high of 53 per cent.  The difference in these rates

is greater than is first apparent.  If one were to project an SMA.

of 1,000,000 population on the bases of these two rates compounded

every decade; .he would show a projection of 1,600,000 and 8,000,000.

And remember the other size groups vary more.  See Table 7.

       This is not to say, however, that no discernible pattern

exists.  Remember, these are the extreme variations in the rate of

growth and there are obviously few SMA's at either the upper or

lower end of the scale.  To show the variation between these ex-

tremes and to bring order to this mass of data, the rate of growth


 is  tabulated  for SMA's by  size  groups  and by relative rank in Table 7

 for  four previous decades.  To  show  this dispersion, the percentile

 rank was computed.  The  75th percentile, for example, indicates  the

 percentage  growth that above which 25  per cent and below which 75

 per  cent of the SMA's experienced.   The percentile growth rates  for

 each SMA size group were averaged for  all decades to more nearly

 approximate the rate of  growth  over  time.  The 1930-40 decade was

 eliminated  because it was  atypical,  while the other four decades

 had  a relatively uniform national growth rate and one which coincides

 with the projected national growth rate.  Variability in the growth

 rate between decades within the same percentile rank of a given SMA

 size class  exists, but is not great  in the 25 to 75 percentile rank.

 For  example, the SMA (size class 200,000 to 400,000) in the 75th

 percentile  growth rank increased between 28 per cent and 31 per

 cent for an average of 30 per cent.  The median or 50th percentile

 increased from 18 to 21 per cent, or an average of 20 per cent,

while the 25th percentile increased  between 11 per cent to 18 per

 cent for an average of 14 per cent.  Figure 2 shows the average of

 these percentile growth rates.  Note the uniformity of the rates

 of growth for the 75th to 25th percentile rank for the cities

 between 100,000 to 1,600,000.  As mentioned previously, the SMA's

under 100,000 are expected to more closely approximate the rate of

 increase of the other SMA size groups  in the near future.  It is

 only the SMA's over 1,600,000 that deviate from this pattern.

O  60
S  40
I-  30
%  20
                       POPULATION SIZE  GROUP
                                                       FIGURE 2

                                   Table 7
   Range in the Percentage Rate of Growth of SMA's of Varying Size Groups
                    for 1910-20, 1920-30, 1940-50, 1950-60

Under 100.000:
1910-1920         15
1920-1930         16
1940-1950         20
1950-1960         18

1910-1920         32
1920-1930         47
1940-1950         54
1950-1960         62

1910-1920         23
1920-1930         32
1940-1950         42
1950-1960         47

1910-1920         15
1920-1930         12
1940-1950         19
1950-1960         28

1910-1920          2
1920-1930          7
1940-1950          9
1950-1960         12

Over 1.600.000;
1910-1920          4
1920-1930          5
1940-1950          7
1950-1960          9














*  Atypical cases adjusted


       Of what predictive value is the above analysis?  Simply this,

it will give guidance to the upper and lower limit of the forecast.

One can test the "reasonableness" of a given SMA attaining a specific

forecast population given the trends of past SMA's in various size

groups and given the particular SMA's past growth rate within these

size classes.  If a SMA has been growing slower than average, say

about at the 25th percentile rank, then one can see what population

it would attain if it stayed at this relative position.  Or if one

made a forecast, one can work backwards and determine at what relative

rank this SMA would have to grow to reach this forecast and to see

if this is "reasonable" in view of its past performance.  One

problem remains:  Do SMA's tend to grow at a relatively constant

trend compared to other cities in its size group?  To spot-check

this, we will review the performance of the cities you gentlemen

represent.  New York and Chicago are omitted because there are too

few SMA's in this size category.

                             Table 8

            Percent!le Growth Rank of Select SMA's for
            Decades 1910-20, 1920-30, 1940-50, 1950-60

                       1910-20   1920-30  1930-40  1940-50  1950-60

Kansas City
Salt Lake City
San Francisco-Oakland
Washington, D. C.

* Did not meet the requirement of a SMA.

       Table 8 indicates that some SMA's grow at a relatively con-

sistent trend compared to cities in its size group while others do

not.  However, the validity of a forecast within broad limits can

be checked by these data.  Atlanta, for example, fluctuated within

the upper one-third of the fastest growing city in its size-class

during the last 5 decades.  Austin has been experiencing a relatively

decreasing rate of increase.  Houston, on the other hand, has con-

sistently been the fastest growing SMA in its size group the last

four decades.

       These data establish rather broad boundary lines for pro-

jections.  Atlanta has been hovering around the 75th percentile

growth rate.  The average growth rate would seem low, but likewise

the 90th percentile would seem high.  On the other hand, Cincinnati


has never grown as fast as the average.  It would seem from its

past record, and in the absence of radically changed conditions,

that to select a growth rate for Cincinnati that would be above

average would not be tenable.

       In order to make projections of the probable range of growth

on the basis of the procedure just discussed, it will be necessary

to project the median and the percentile range in growth rate of

the various SMA size categories.  It is assumed that the decreasing

rate of SMA. growth will influence all percentile growth rates the

same relative amount.  These projected growth rates are tabulated

in Table 9.

       An example of the use of Table 9 to project a SMA follows.

Table 8 shows that Dallas SMA fluctuated between the 77th and 87th

percentile.  What) would be the range in the 2010 projection if one

assumes the upper limit would be that paralleling the.projected 90th

percentile growth rate and the lower limit would parallel the 75th



                              Table 10

                       Projection of Dallas
          (Using projected 90th percentile growth rate)
Growth Rate
          (Using projected 75th percentile growth rate)

1960      1,071,003            130.2         1,394,000        1970

1970      1,394,000            128.5         1,792,000        1980

1980      1,792,000            118.4         2,122,000        1990

1990      2,122,000            117.2         2,486,000        2000

2000      2,486,000            116.0         2,884,000        2010

       One enters the table with three arguments; SMA size,

percentile growth rate, and decade.  In this table one finds that

SMA's ranging from 800,000 - 1,600,000 (Dallas was 1,071,003 in

1960) in the 1960-70 decade are predicted to grow 37.8:per cent

during the decade (if they grow at the 90th percentile growth rate)

During the following decade the rate is 35.6 per cent.  By 1980

Dallas SMA is over 1,600,000, so one drops down to the category

"over 1,600,000V and uses the growth rates of 25.1 per cent,


23.4 per cent, and 21.8 per cent for the next three decades.  The

same is repeated for the 75th percentile growth rate.  The calcula-

tions are illustrated in Table 10.

       What is the reliability of these projections?  The Bureau of

the Census states, "There is no approved body of knowledge which

justifies confident predictions for 15 years or more into the future."

This being the case, what claim to fame has this method?  What

accuracy does it purport to have?  The writer devised this procedure

in an attempt to establish limits within which a forecast would

seem "reasonable".  The validity cannot be checked, of course, but

it can be compared to other techniques.

       How does this projection compare with others?  The RFF pro-

jection for the year 2000 was 2,950,000 (corrected to include the

addition of 3 more counties to the Dallas SMA) based upon the United

States total of 380,000,000 in 2010, which is assumed here.  The

projection by the Bureau of Census for 2000 (adjusted to for the

same assumed national population) was approximately 2,860,000.

The projections proposed by the writer indicate a low of 2,486,000

and a hig of 3,089,000, for an average of 2,788,000.

       Another check is to work "backwards".  A population as high

as 9,000,000 has been forecast for Houston SMA from a base of

1,236,704 in 1960.  Is this "reasonable"?  To attain this population


growth in 50 years, Houston SMA would have to increase 50 per cent

every 10 years.  Although this rate of increase had been attained

in the 1950-60 decade by both Houston and Los Angeles, the fastest

growing SMA's in the two largest size categories (see Table 7),  it

seems unlikely that a growth rate of that magnitude can be sustained

for reasons mentioned earlier.  If Houston SMA is assumed to

continue to grow at the highest growth rate indicated on Table 9,

a population forecast of 6,502,000 would seem more reasonable.

       This methodology is in the nature of a hypothesis.  It seems

to give guidance.  Nothing more is claimed.

                                   Table 9
                  Forecast Range in Percentage Growth Rates
                      for SMA's of Various Size-Classes
Under 100,000
to 800.000:
to 1,600,000;
The mean associated with the above medians is 24.5 per cent.
The mean growth in 2010 is assumed to be 17.8 per cent.

The percentile growth rates therefore is reduced by 24.5/17.8  or 72.6 per
cent by 2010.  The intervening years were reduced by arithmetic progression,


                     Summary and Conclusions

       1.  There is no approved body of knowledge that justifies

confident population predictions for 15 years or more into the

future.  Nevertheless, forecasts must be made.  This paper summa-

ries the trends for Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas during

the last 50 years, and suggests limits of probable growth trends

for each SMA in the Nation.

       2.  Data of population trends of the last 50 years show

these trends:

         a.   The total SMA population has been increasing at

              relatively constrant rate.

         b.   Net migration flows from the Non-SMA to the SMA,

              therefore, the SMA is becoming a relatively larger

              part of the total population.

         c.   ^h.e median growth rates and the deviations from

              the median of SMA's between 100,000 and 1,600,000

              show marked similarity.

         d.   Although there is considerable variation in the

              rate of growth among SMA's in the same size group,

              the relative variability in the growth rates of

              individual SMA's is considerably less.

       3.  Past trends suggest that:

         a.   The growth rate of the total SMA population will

              decrease because the migration from the Non-SMA's

              will contribute relatively less in its growth in

              the future.

         b.   Since many SMA's grow at a relatively consistent

              trend in relation to the growth rate of other

              SMA's in their size category the growth rates

              for individual SMA's can be projected.

       4.  The past rate of growth and the relative dispersion in

the rate of growth is shown for all SMA's of the Nation in the

appendix.  From these data, the forecaster may make a judgment as

to the limits of the most probable future growth rate of a given

SMA.  Table 9 summarizes the projected growth rates that can be

used for projection.




       This  paper  is concerned with the application of growth factors to

economic  base  studies  and  the  consideration of whether the values for

these factors can be standardized.

       The term  "growth factors" has been selected to refer to a class of

terms  which  are  used  to  describe some of the important changes in the

relationships  between  parameters  of the economy.   Examples include the

so-called  productivity  factor  which describes the changing relationship

between  the output of an industry and the quantity of labor employed.  To

illustrate,  if the productivity of the workers in a certain establishment

increases over time and the output of the plant is to remain the same, then

fewer workers will be required in the future or the same number of workers

will work shorter hours.

       Another  example  of  a  growth factor is the changing relationship

between  employment  in  primary  (sometimes  called  basic or externally-

oriented) Industries and the number of service (sometimes called secondary

or internally-oriented) industry employees that are required to serve them.

When  employment  is  converted to population, a third example of a growth

factor  is  found  in  the  changing relationship describing the number of

persons in the population per worker.

       As  a  first  step  in examining the nature of growth factors it is

desirable to examine how they will be used.   They will,  of course,  be a
!/ Prepared  by John H. Davidson,  U. S. Public Health Service,  Portland,
   Oregon, March 1961.

                                   - 2 -

part  of  the  economic  study—more  properly  called  the  economic base

analysis  and  forecast.   Although  such studies are made for a number of

purposes,  our  interest  in  the  economic  study is usually as a tool to

provide  basic  data  and  forecasts about water consumers, users of water

resources,  and contributors of pollution.   By keeping such goals in mind

the  economic  study  can avoid getting into irrelevant areas or providing

unnecessary  detail.   I  think  that  we  can agree that some of the more

important  statistics which should come out of the economic study would be

population,  employment,  industrial output (for many, but not all, indus-

tries) and land use.

       In order to get a better look at the economic study and to recognize

the role of growth factors it is helpful to construct a model.   The  con-

struction  of such a model is also one of the basic steps in preparing the

economic study.   It  should  be  pointed  out that many of the people who

prepare  economic  base studies use the model technique without calling it

such.   The concept of a model, however, is particularly important because

it assists in the recognition and definition of the important relationships

between segments of the economy.   The acknowledgment and understanding of

the causes and effects of various economic features is basic to interpreting

and forecasting the economy of a specific area.  Such an understanding can

frequently  point  the  way to avoiding two dangerous over-simplifications

frequently encountered in forecasting.   These are (1) blind extrapolation

of historical trends, and (2) assuming that the study area has exactly the

same  characteristics  as  the  Nation and will maintain its same relative

position.  It should be recognized that the use of a model does not neces-

sarily mean  that an equation must be written.   Many  worthwhile  economic

                                   - 3 -

studies are conducted on a much less formal basis, with  the  model  being

described in sentences rather than by a formula.

       As  a  basis  for the model we need to know some of the fundamental

relationships  between  the facets of the economy which relate to the sta-

tistics we want to obtain.   One  important such relationship is indicated

in  the  concept that some economic activities which involve employment of

persons  are  of  a  primary nature and others are of a supporting nature.

Although  the  distinctions are sometimes difficult to make, a very useful

tool  is  derived  by classifying all industries—  into either externally-

oriented  industry  or  internally-oriented industry and examining the nu-

merical relationships between their respective employments.

       It  should  be  noted  at  this  point that the reference to either

external  or internal orientation of industry has been selected to attempt

to  overcome  some  of  the  shortcomings of other such pairs of terms for

industry as basic and non-basic,  primary and secondary (or service), etc.

These classifications can be briefly defined as follows:

       Externally-oriented  industries  depend  on  the  particular

       resources or manufacturing opportunities of the area.  These

       opportunities allow,  in theory, for the prdduction of goods

       in excess of the requirements of the community.   The excess

       is exported from the area, and products from other areas are

       imported.   The internally-oriented Industries,  in general,

       depend  on  the  consumer needs of a community.  They supply
I/ The term  "industries" is used in the broad sense to indicate all types
   of value-producing activities.  These activities include those relating
   to both goods and services and not just to manufacturing.

                                   - 4 -

       goods and services sufficient for the community and grow when

       the community's externally-oriented industries develop.

       When using  this  model  approach, it should be recognized that the

bigger the study area the less valid is the technique.   As  a  ridiculous

example, if the whole United States is considered, there  is  very  little

basis  for  making  a  distinction between primary industry and supporting

industry  because  about  95 per cent of our national economic activity is

for  internal  consumption.   On a community or local area basis, however,

it  is  typical  to  find  about half the economic activity is internally

oriented and  half  is  externally-oriented.   The ratio between these two

types  of  industry is usually a function of the size and diversity of the

community's  or  area's  economy.   Depending upon the area, the ratio can

vary from,  say,  1/2  worker in internally-oriented industries per worker

in externally-oriented industries in a rural area to a ratio of  2 or more

in  an  urban  area.   The important point here is that from a forecast of

externally-oriented  industry  one  has a basis for deriving the extent of

internally-oriented industry.   In like fashion one can convert employment

to  population  by  multiplying the employment by the number of persons In

the population per worker. This ratio will vary considerably for different

areas  but  averages about 3 persons per worker.  Although changes in this

ratio  over  a  period  of time would be expected for various areas, it is

interesting  to  note  that  the  Department of Labor estimates—  of total

labor  force  participation  rates  for 1975 are almost unchanged from the

1955 level.	

I/ Population and Labor Force Projections for the United States,  1960  to
   1975,  Bulletin  No. 1242,  U. S. Department of Labor,  Bureau of Labor
   Statistics, June 1959.

                                   - 5 -

       A simplified expression of this model would be as follows:

(Externally-oriented industry workers)^) B (Internally-oriented Industry


(Externally-oriented industry  workers)  +  (Internally-oriented  industry

       workers) *» (Total workers)

(Total workers) x (K2) = (Population)

       where:  K^ is the ratio (for the study area and study period)

               between workers in  internally-oriented  Industry  to

               those In externally-oriented industry,  and K« is the

               ratio of persons in the population per worker.

From this model,  by assuming some average values for K^ and K_,  one  can

develop  a useful rule-of-thumb for estimating the effect on population of

a  new  Industry  in  a  community.  Assuming that K^ B 1 and K^ ° 3, then

one  new  worker In an externally-oriented Industry would, on the average,

add  one  new  worker  in an internally-oriented industry, and would bring

about a total population increase of six persons, considering the families

of each of the workers.

       In  the  construction of a model as the basis for a forecast of the

future economy, one of the major efforts would be the development of a fore-

cast of the total workers in externally-oriented industry. This can be done

by forecasting each of the major components of such industry. The forecast

of  these components usually includes the consideration of productivity of

                                   - 6 -

labor.  As mentioned earlier, other factors such as the length of the work

week might also affect the number of workers.

       The  measurement  of  productivity,  for  our purposes, Is mainly a

problem in estimating its relative change over time.   The  attached chart

has  been  prepared  to  illustrate the annual rate of change for selected

industries.   The  annual  rates of change were based on two indicators of

output. In the first part of the chart physical units of output were used.

In the second part of the chart the output product was measured in constant

dollars.   The  wide  range of annual change among the selected industries

should be noted.

       The  rate  of  annual change also varies considerably over time.  A

hasty measure of this can be derived from examination of the  U. S. Bureau

of Labor Statistics Index of total real private product per man-hour.  For

the period 1950-1959 its average annual increase amounted to 2.8 per cent,

for  the  period  1947-1950  the annual increase was 4.5 per cent, and for

1941-1947  it was 1.0 per cent.   Over the last 50 years the annual change

of this index has averaged 2.2 per cent.

       From  this  discussion and from the chart it should be obvidus that

the productivity factor varies considerably depending upon the industry and

the time for which it is measured, and that this might have a considerable

effect on the economic model.  However, rather than digress any further at

this  time  on  the  subject of constructing models of the economy, I have

included as Appendix I some further notes about the construction of a model

such as we are using in our studies of the Pacific Northwest.

       With this background the question which prompted this paper can now

be examined.  This question was initially stated as follows:

    Productivity Factors for Selected Industries In the Private Economy
                   Annual Rate of Change for Last Decade
                   Bituminous Coal




                  Glass Containers

                       Basic Steel

Food Canning, Preserving, Freezing

                    Paper and Pulp

                  Synthetic Fibers

                        Coke Group

           Railroad Transportation


               Total Nongovernment


      -2 -1  0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 11

                  Percent of Change, Compound Annual Rate

Source:   Computed from statistics In: Economic Forces In the U. S. A.,
         U. S.  Department of Labor,  Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 1960,
         pages  118-120.

                                   - 7 -

       "Productivity increase factors--can they be standardized?"  We have

broadened  this  question  by  considering other related growth factors as

well.   Examination  of the nature of the coefficients in the simple equa-

tion  developed  as a model of the economic base provides a logical answer

to our question about standardization.   Because  these  coefficients  are

developed from the study of areas with specific conditions they can gener-

ally only be applied to areas with similar conditions. Obviously, it would

be  wrong  to  use national factors for a local situation unless the local

situation  was  completely typical of the Nation by having the same condi-

tions of Influence as the Nation. It is probably s&fe to say that national

growth factors should only be used as guides in making economic studies of

local areas.  Growth factors, therefore, can only be standardized when the

individual  study  areas  are identical with standard conditions.  Because

this is not often likely, we must modify or develop growth factors to meet

the situation found in the study area.

       Even though this point of view precludes the preparation of a single

set of factors to be plugged into all economic studies,  I  feel  that the

approach  or  methodology  involved  in  making  economic  studies is more

subject  to  standardization.  Although it is not possible or desirable to

lay  out  a  cook-book  approach  that  will serve all needs, it should be

feasible  for us to agree on the general principles and standards for such

studies and then to work cooperatively toward the improvement of techniques

and  the  sharing  of  basic information*  Since I have taken the position

that standardization of growth factors is not generally feasible, there is

little opportunity for me to complete the use of my allotted time with the

                                   - 8 -

presentation of a tabulation of standard factors.   In Lieu of this,  I am

attaching as Appendix II a brief annotated bibliography of some Interesting

publications  in this field which might provide some additional background

on procedures and sources of information.

       In addition,  I wish to make a few brief comments about some of the

influences  to  be  considered in developing these various growth factors.

One of the Influences on the possible number of employees is the length of

the work week.   One  simple  rationalization that could eliminate further

adjustments  is  to assume that the decrease of the work week will exactly

offset  the  increased productivity due to such factors as automation.  It

should  be  considered,  however, that any possible shortening of the work

week will likely be greatest in manufacturing industries and will probably

not occur at all in many industries, particularly small service industries.

       The  matter  of  productivity  is of interest not only in regard to

employees,  but also with respect to the output of the land resource.   We

have witnessed in the last few decades some tremendous changes in the pro-

ductivity of farm land.  We have also seen a considerable mechanization of

fanning processes.   In many areas, however, this latter has not decreased

the  number  of  persons  employed  on farms because there have been other

changes, such as Irrigation,  which have resulted in more intensive use of

land and an increase in the labor requirement of this land.

       Increased productivity from forest land will probably be one of the

dramatic  changes  to  occur  in  the  future economic base of the Pacific

Northwest.  Experiments now underway Indicate that fertilization of forest

areas  and  the  application  of genetic principles to tree harvesting and

                                   - 9 -

reforestation  will  have  a tremendous effect on the productivity of this


       In conclusion,  I would like to summarize some of the main areas to

be examined in this paper.  These are enumerated as follows:

       1.  Economic  base  studies  are  facilitated  by the use of models

           which  define  the  important relationships between segments of

           the economy.

       2.  The  model  generally  contains the growth factors expressed as

           coefficients modifying the various basic statistics.

       3.  The growth factors can only be standardized when the individual

           study areas meet standard conditions;  therefore,  standardiza-

           tion of growth factors usually is not feasible.

       4.  Standardization  of  methodology  is  a feasible and worthwhile


                                APPENDIX  I

Notes  on  an  Economic  Model  of Future Employment and Population in the

Willamette River Basin of Oregon.

A.  Introductory Notes

    1.  The  model  described  in  this  appendix  is not intended to be a

        complete  description  of  the economy, but merely presents a pro-

        cedure for analyzing employment.   This  procedure is particularly

        important, however, because employment can be,  and frequently is,

        the common denominator for various parameters of the economy.  Em-

        ployment  can also be utilized as the basis for both water use and

        pollution contribution studies.

    2.  The application  of the model to a basin requires some judgment as

        to the size of the sub-area to be included.   For convenience, the

        area to be covered in one model study should be relatively homoge-

        nous.   It  is planned in the Willamette Basin to make three model

        studies to cover the upper,  middle,  and  lower  sections  of the

        Basin.  Each of these sections has distinguishing economic charac-


    3.  Comparisons  of  the  model's  results  with forecasts prepared by

        other  means  and  with  forecasts  of the region or Nation are an

        important part of the forecasting process.   Such  comparisons not

        only provide a check on results, but where a significant difference

        In results occurs,  valuable insight into the economy is gained by

        accounting for the difference.


B.  Components of Model

    1.  Externally-Oriented Industry Employment Forecast (Exf)

               Expansion  in  each  significant component of this category

        will  be  forecast  and  the resulting employment computed, taking

        into account possible changes in productivity of workers or changes

        in the work week.  The forecasts of resource-based industries will

        recognize the limits imposed by the extent of the resource.  Simi-

        larly,  the forecasts of market-oriented Industries will recognize

        the limits imposed by marketing areas.   Forecasts  of  other non-

        resource-oriented  industries  will  be  mainly  based on national

        trends.  The major industrial categories to be considered are:




                  Forest Activities

                  Manufacturing (by major classification).

               Also to be considered in this category are those activities

        generally thought of as internally-oriented,  but  which  actually

        are based to a significant degree on external influences. Examples

        would  be  tourist  facilities  or transportation facilities  which

        would  serve  a much larger area than the local industry or market

        would justify.

    2.  Internally-Oriented Industry Employment Forecast (Elf)

               Employment in  these  industries will be computed by multi-

        plying  the  externally-oriented  industry employment (Exf) by K^,

        the  ratio of internally-oriented industry workers per externally-


    oriented industry worker.  This ratio would be adjusted to reflect

    the  nature  of  the  study area and the growth of this ratio over


4.  Total Employment Forecast (Etf)

           The forecast of total employment is the sum of the forecasts

    of each category of employment.  This can be expressed as:

             Etf " Exf + Eif  or  Etf =» Exf (1 -I- KI)

5.  Population Forecast

           The population is computed by multiplying  total employment

    by  K2»  the  ratio of the number of persons in the population per

    employee.   This ratio would be adjusted to reflect such trends as

    a growing number of households with more than one person employed.

    The number of households and dwelling units would be forecast from

    the population, recognizing the trends in family size, etc.

           The model for the population forecast would be expressed as


             P = (K2) 
                             APPENDIX II
Bibliography of Selected References on Economic Base Studies and Data
  Charles E. Staley.  Center for Research in Business, The University
  of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.  October 1960.

      Has a discussion of models and an example of their use in
      the systematic exploration of future industrial use of water.
      Also has employee productivity data (including forecasts)
      and discussion of this subject.

  Gertrude Bancroft, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D. C.
  October 1956.

      Has projections, by age and sex, of labor force and participa-
      tion rates.  Utilizes four sets of assumptions in projections.

  U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security, Washington,
  D. C.  Third Quarter 1959.

      A handy source of recent statistics on "covered employment."

  Western Regional Report #6, U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
  Statistics, San Francisco, California.  August 1959.

      Analysis of total employment trends by major employment
      divisions, for eleven western states.   Region is compared
      with the United States.

  Bureau of Employment Security, U. S. Department of Labor, Seattle,
  Washington.  January 1960.

      An example of the periodic reports on employment prepared
      by the Bureau of Employment Security.   Has monthly employment
      data, by major employment divisions, for Pacific Northwest
      States and Alaska.

                                 II - 2
  The Prudential Insurance Company of America, Planning and Development
  Department (Tenth Edition).  December 12, 1960.

      Brief statement of the industrial and commercial economy, on
      a national basis, with a forecast for 1961.

  Bonnar Brown and M. Janet Hansen.  Stanford Research Institute,
  Menlo Park, California.  March 1957.

      Contains projections of the national economy through 1975,
      broken into 13 broad sectors.  Projections include employ-
      ment, gross product (based on Gross National Product), and
      gross product per employee.

  McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, Inc., Department of Economics, 1958.

      Contains projections of the national economy through 1975.
      Projections Include population, productivity, work week,
      investment, raw materials, power, consumer expenditures.

  Hearings before the Joint Economic Committee, 86th Congress, Sec. 5(a)
  of P. L. 304 (79th Congress).  March 1959.

      Analysis of national economy—mainly during last decade.  Has
      projections for 1964.

  Harold M. Levinson and supplementary technical material to the staff
  report of George W. Bleile and Thomas A. Wilson.  Prepared in con-
  nection with the Study of Employment, Growth, and Price Levels,
  Joint Economic Committee, 86th Congress.  January 30, 1960.

      Analysis of manufacturing industries with respect to prices
      and wages.  On a national basis and mainly for 1947-1958

  Charles L. Schultze, Committee for Economic Development.  Library of
  Congress Catalog Card Number: 60-8582.

      An analysis (on a national basis by broad sectors of the
      economy) of prices, costs, and output for 1947-1957.

                                 II - 3
  U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce,
  Office of Business Economics, Washington, D. C.  1951.

      Analysis of economic, population, and employment trends by
      region and state for several decades ending in 1950.

  Research and Policy Committee, Committee for Economic Development.
  February 1958.

      A general statement on national policy.  Does not have detailed

  U. S. Department of Labor, Washington, D. C.  1960.

      A general statement on a national basis, of the manpower
      requirements to 1970.

  Research Department, The Curtis Publishing Company, Philadelphia, Pa.
  Release #241.  August 1959.

      A brief compilation of recent forecasts, on a national basis.

  Transmitted  to the Congress, January 20, 1960.  U. S. Government
  Printing Office, Washington: 1960.

      Source of historical economic data on a national basis.

  U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, D.C.
  April 1959.

      A convenient collection of indexes (on a national basis) published
      by The Bureau of Labor Statistics.

  U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Vol. 6, No. 11.
  May 1960.  (Annual Supplement Issue).

      Detailed employment data by industry, state, and metropolitan

                                 II - 4
  Prepared for the Joint Economic Committee by the Committee Staff and
  the Office of Statistical Standards, Bureau of the Budget.  86th
  Congress, 2nd Session, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington.

      Statistical data on a national basis.

  U. S. Department of Commerce, Business and Defense Services Administra-
  tion, Office of Area Development, Area Trend Series No. 5, June 1960.

      Report presents an index of manufacturing diversification useful
      as a research tool in economic base analysis.

  U. S. Department of Commerce, Office of Area Development.

      A monthly bulletin describing studies and references on area
      development activities.

  U. S. Department of Commerce, Business and Defense Services Administration.

      A monthly bibliography of publications relating to markets,
      economics, etc.  Includes public, private, and foreign sources.

  U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 1960.

      Contains selected economic data, mainly on a national basis.
      Includes a chapter on economic output, which contains data
      on productivity.

  Relations News Letter by General Electric Company, August 1960.

      A brief discussion of productivity with data illustrating
      50 years of the national trend.

  Harry S. Perloff and Lowdon Wingo, Jr., Resources for the Future, Inc.,
  Reprint No. 24, December 1960.

      An examination of the historical growth of various regions
      from the standpoint of the influence of resources.




                               LOCATION FACTORS
                             Charles H. Hajinian
                           Water Resources Section
                Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control
                      Public Health Service, Region VII
               U. S. Department of Health, Education, & Welfare

       Industry in the United States is moving.  Due to the competitive nature

of our enterprise system, a careful analysis must be made by any manufacturing

establishment before a new location is selected.  In making this analysis many

factors must be evaluated, particularly those that vary significantly from area

to area.  The objective is the determination of that area in which the product

can be manufactured and delivered to market at the lowest total cost.

       There are many location factors to be considered in choosing a location

for an industrial plant.  The factors may be classified as (A) essential,

(B) important, or (C) to be considered.  The distinction between these cate-

gories is important.  Essential requirements are those necessary if the plant

is to operate profitably.  Important factors are those which will increase the

margin of profit but do not have the significance of the first category.

Factors to be considered add to the attractiveness of the site and may have

some bearing on profits.

       There are 18 or more plant location factors recognized by authorities

in the field to be analyzed in choosing a location for an industrial plant.

Arranged in alphabetical order these are:



                 Distribution Facilities

                 Financial Help



                 Laws and Regulations

                 Living Conditions



                 Raw Materials

                 Services (Equipment and Maintenance)





                 Waste Disposal


       The general locality is selected on the basis of the essential and

important requirements to an industry, such as the availability of raw

materials, markets and transportation facilities.  Essentiality and importance

will vary from one industry to another.  "Factors to be considered" may help to

determine the specific community within this general area.  For example,

pleasant living conditions are an advantage in locating most concerns.  An

agreeable climate and recreational facilities are helpful in obtaining high-

class personnel.  Some communities may have high land values and taxes, local

ordinances, or community attitudes which would discourage industry.  Other

communities may offer inducements such as free or low-cost land, lower taxes,

and financial grants.

       Before a building site is selected, an engineering study should be made.

This consists of a terrain study, including analysis of structural foundations

and drainage conditions.  In regard to water supply, the ground and surface

water should be determined and the quality established.

       Though it is hazardous to generalize on the locational economic factors

of industries comprising broad categories, nevertheless, the following attributes

may be accepted as characteristic.

       This report will discuss locational factors of the following industrial

categories which have heavy water requirements:  (1) pulp and paper; (2) petro-

leum refining; (3) chemicals; and (4) iron and steel.  Each is examined

individually to determine its particular site requirements.

       A study of the Texas Engineering Experiment Station illustrates the

application of locational factors by the first three of the above-mentioned

industries.  This study is reviewed in the final portion of this paper.

                           Pulp and Paper Industry

       The pulp and paper category is one of the Largest and fastest growing

industries in the United States.  In the four-year span, 1954-1958, value of

shipments increased from $3,769,700,000 to $4,769,772,000, or approximately 21

per cent.—'  The United States per capita paper consumption increased from 58.0

pounds in 1899 to 200.6 pounds in 1930, to 328.5 pounds in 1950, and to 421.0

pounds in 1955.-/

       Pulp and paper mills are located in the New England-New York area, the

Southeastern States, the West Coast and the Lake States.  Essential factors

governing the location of these mills are the availability of fibrous raw

materials, an abundant supply of good water, good transportation facilities,

ample power supply or sources of power, and waste disposal capability.

Important factors are proximity to markets and an adequate labor supply.

Factors to be considered are general living conditions, local ordinances,

taxes, and the attitude of local authorities and the community.

Essential Requirements

       The most important of all the factors listed is the availability of

fibrous raw materials.  Before the introduction of wood pulp, paper manufacturers

used straw for wrapping paper, board and some printing papers, and rags for

writing papers.  In 1880, of a total of 619,682 tons of raw materials, approxi-

mately 40 per cent was straw; 29 per cent, rags; 16 per cent, old paper; and

15 per cent, manila stock.  Rags were obtained from American cities which also

supplied the markets for finished products; thus, Massachusetts, New York,

Pennsylvania and Connecticut, in that order, led in the production of paper.—'

       When wood pulp came into use, the industry spread farther into the New

England states, which were richly endowed with spruce and fir.  As these

supplies became depleted, however, the wood pulp output shifted westward and


       The South is becoming increasingly important to the pulp and paper

industry and contains 40 to 45 per cent of the commercial timber of the nation.—'

The southern pine grows to the optimum height in 25 or 35 years, which is two

or three times the rate of most northern species.  It has very few limbs and

knots, and extremely long fibers, which make it desirable.  The development of

the sulfate (kraft) process made the southern pine more usable for strong paper.

       Until the late 1930's, attempts to use the southern pine for newsprint

were unsuccessful.  Grinding stones were easily fouled; high resin and pitch

content fouled machines; and paper was marred by stains, holes and slime spots.

However, adaptations were made in grinding stones, while chemicals solved the

problems of "blue stain" (a fungus), slime, pitch and resin.  Despite this,

newsprint production did not move south until the weak price situation of the

depression years was corrected.  Even then, first attempts were financed in

part by newspaper publishers and in part by the Reconstruction Finance


       Although much of the Nation's paperboard is made of waste paper, an

increasing share in recent years has come from the kraft process.  For any

given strength, kraft is extremely light and, for any given weight, it is

extremely strong.  In 1925, only 20,700 tons of kraft paperboard were pro-

duced (0.7 per cent of the total); in 1956, the figure had risen to 5,971,000

tons (41.6 per cent of the total).—'

       The following figures on total wood pulp capacity show that the increases

in output in the South are greater than elsewhere, although production in other

areas has not declined.

                             Wood Pulp Production ~"

                             (Thousands of Tons)

                         Middle Atlantic     Lake     West     South     Total
New England
       Throughout the pulp process, pulp is handled in water suspensions vary-

ing in consistency from 0.5 to 30 per cent solids, which means about 3 to 200

                                        2 /
times as much water (by weight) as pulp.—   The suspension fed to the forming

part of the machine usually contains one-half pound of pulp to 99.5 pounds of

water.  Water is recirculated and reused whenever possible, in order to recover

all the raw material (fibers) in suspension, but the over-all consumption may

be anywhere from 25,000 to 100,000 gallons per ton of finished paper.1'  The

amount is dependent upon the type of paper produced and the process used.

       The water should be clean, of good color (if white papers are being made),

low in chlorides and free of excessive amounts of dissolved solids.  The supply

must be adequate the year round.  Most mills rely on surface streams or lakes,

but some obtain their water from wells.  Approximately 78 per cent of all pulp

and paper mills use surface water and 22 per cent use ground water.—'

       In the North, streams have been used for carrying raw materials to the

pulp and paper mills.  Today, this method has been replaced by trucks or rail,

as many mills find it necessary to go greater distances for their supply.  In

the South, rail and trucks are commonly used for transporting the raw materials.

The reason why streams are not used is an interesting one - the southern pine

pulp wood is too heavy and sinks in water.

       Barges carry a sizable proportion of raw materials and finished products.

Most of the larger mills are located on navigable waterways (e.g., Champion's

Pasadena, Texas, mill on the Houston Ship Canal; Bowaters Southern at the

confluence of the Hiwassee and Tennessee Rivers; Rome Kraft and Coosa River

on the Coosa-Alabama River system; Union Bag Camp on the Savannah; Macon Kraft

on the Ocmulgee).—'


       Pulp and paper mills depend heavily on transportation facilities.  For

efficient operation, replacement machine parts must be delivered quickly.  In

this case the time element is extremely vital.  Therefore, the highway net and

rail connections are significant.

       Fuel for power generation is an essential factor to the pulp and paper

industry.  Many mills have their own turbines or generators to supply all or

part of the power needed.  In fact, the industry ranks first among all industries

in generating power for its own use and seventh as a purchaser of power, and is

in third place (outranked only by chemicals and by iron and steel)as a consumer

of industrial power.. —

       Chemical recovery is high in the paper industry.  At present, recovery

systems are especially effective at the digester area, averaging around 90 per

cent.  However, the waste disposal problem continues to be enormous and must be

solved if the industry is to grow.  On several occasions, accidental releases

of cooking liquors have resulted in fish "kills" in receiving streams.—

       Color is the most objectionable characteristic of most paper mill wastes.

To date no economically feasible method has been developed to remove color from

the large volumes of wash water which constitute the major portion of wastes

from this industry.  Satisfactory disposal of these wastes can only be accom-

plished by dilution with color-free water, which means that pulp mills must

locate near rivers and streams with sufficiently large flows to accept and

dilute the colored wastes to a point that they present no further problem.

The number of mill sites with water flows adequate to provide satisfactory

dilution of treated wastes is becoming scarce.

Important Factors

       Proximity to market is an important factor, simply because paper and

paper products are low-value-per-ton products on which freight rates are quite

high.  The general rule is that plants tend to locate where total transfer

costs of moving raw materials and products to market are lowest.  Companies

depending on waste paper as a raw material have no problem in this respect,

since the source of supply and market are usually in the same general area.

       An adequate labor supply is necessary to the industry, but is not

generally a problem.  In pulp mills the number of workers per unit of product

is comparatively low and few skilled workers are required.  When the announce-

ment was made that the Bowaters mill was to be built in Calhoun, Tennessee, in

1953, people from 200 miles away sent in applications.  With about 800 jobs

available, the industrial relations manager received some 20,000 applications.—'

Factors to be Considered

       Factors to be considered are general living conditions, local ordinances,

taxes and the attitude of the community and the local authorities.

                              Petroleum Refining

       In 1957^ the petroleum industry produced an average of 7,169,000 barrels

of crude oil daily.—   The per capita consumption of petroleum in the United

States has increased from 7.5 barrels in 1929 to 10.1 barrels in 1939, to 14.1

barrels in 1950, and to 20.1 barrels in 1960.57  The following table shows that

the contribution of petroleum to the total energy consumed (as compared to other

energy sources such as coal, natural gas, and water power) has increased

spectacularly, especially between 1917 and 1927.

                    Energy Sources in the United States 5,6/
                (In Per Cent of Total Consumption - BTU Basis)
Natural Gas
Water Power
*  Data unavailable

       Petroleum refineries are generally located at or near producing wells,

at trans-shipment points or in areas of heavy consumption.  Essential require-

ments are markets, transportation, availability of raw materials, water, and

waste disposal capabilities.  Important requirements are fuel and power, and

sites.  Factors to be considered are living conditions, laws and taxes.

Essential Requirements

       There is a slight tendency to erect new refineries where markets are

assured, due to the growing dependence on crude imports.  The vast system of

pipelines for transporting crude oils has facilitated the market location as

evidenced by petroleum refining districts on the Great Lakes between Chicago

and Cleveland, and on the Atlantic Coast between Baltimore and New York, rather

than near the major oil fields.

       Transportation costs of crude oil and refined products play an important

part in the profitability of refining operations.  Crude oil is transported

from the oil fields to the refineries by pipelines, tankers, tank cars or

trucks.  Normally the cheapest mode is by oil tanker; it costs two and one-half

cents to transport one barrel of crude oil 100 miles.—'  Consequently, many

refineries have located in coastal areas accessible to tanker transportation

for movements of either crude oil or finished products, including foreign imports.

       About 75 per cent of the crude oil received at refineries is transported

by pipeline at some time.  In 1958, the United States had a pipeline network

in excess of 160,000 miles serving the petroleum industry.  Costs of overland

transportation by pipeline vary, but generally they average about three cents

or more per barrel of crude oil per hundred miles.§/


       Rail and truck facilities are not competitive with tankers or pipelines.

These forms are used to a limited extent in new fields where no pipelines are

available or in small fields where production volumes do not justify pipeline


       Petroleum refineries in the past have often located near major oil fields,

Although some refineries may still do so, it is becoming less.common, since it

becomes uneconomical when production falls off at any single field.

       An adequate water supply is essential to the location of a petroleum

refinery.  The conversion of gases into products requires from 0.8 to 44.5

gallons of water for each gallon of crude oil processed.  Since the breaking

up of crude oil into its products is a conversion of high thermal efficiency,

almost 97 per cent of the water is used for cooling.—'

       Adequate waste disposal facilities are a necessity.  During the proces-

sing of the crude oil, the effluent is run through settling ponds or tanks to

collect waste oil and avoid pollution.  If the effluent has accumulated harmful

chemicals, it may also be treated to eliminate them.  If the water supply is

limited, water may be retained and cooled in ponds or towers for reuse.

Important Factors

       The rates of electrical power may be significant.  A refinery requiring

a great amount of power may find it more economical to build its own power

plant than to purchase utility company power.


       Refinery equipment is extremely large and heavy.  Therefore,  it is very

important that the soil in any selected location be able to support  exception-

ally heavy loads.

Factors to be Considered

       Factors to be considered are living conditions, laws and taxes.

                              Chemical Industry

       The importance of the chemical industry can best be illustrated by the

increasing value of sales of chemical and allied products from 1939 to 1958.—'

In 1939 the sales were $4,339,000,000 and increased at a steady rate to

$23,219,000,000 in 1958.  The value added by manufacture from 1939 to 1957

increased from $1,818,941,000 to $12,116,000,000.  The dynamic growth of this

industry has always been one of its outstanding features.2/

       The chemical industry is broken up into two branches, organic and in-

organic.  Organic chemicals are defined as compounds which, like plant and

animal matter, contain the very prevalent carbon atom.  These are derived from

residues of prehistoric life, such as coal, petroleum and natural gas, or from

the present day materials of life, such as agricultural products.  More than

2,500 chemical products come from petroleum and natural gas alone.  Chemicals

from these two products accounted for around 57 per cent of the dollar value of

all U.S. chemicals in 1959.  More than half of them ended up in such products

as fibers, plastics, fertilizers, elastomers and synthetic rubber.  The organic

chemicals account for the largest number of the industry's products.—'

       Compounds that do not contain the carbon atom, but are obtained from

such things as atmospheric gases, water and minerals, are inorganic compounds.

For example, salt is used to produce chlorine, caustic soda, bleaches and soda

ash; sulfur is used for sulfuric acid; and nitrogen and oxygen are used for

ammonia, nitric acid and oxygen production.


       In general, location factors follow the same pattern for all companies

producing basic chemcials.  For the purpose of this report the two divisions

will be treated as one unit, with greater emphasis on the petrochemical industry,

       The geographic location of a chemical plant depends largely on the

essential factors:  availability of raw materials; low-cost fuel and power;

inexpensive transportation facilities; proximity to markets; water and waste

disposal capabilities; and the availability of good quality labor.  An important

factor is proximity to other supplies and maintenance service.  Factors to be

considered are regulatory laws and practices, taxes, and living conditions.

Essential Requirements

       Chemical manufacturers use a variety of raw materials, such as coal,

petroleum, air, water and minerals.  The minerals include such materials as

sulfur, salts, sand, clay, lead, zinc, copper, iron, boron and aluminum.

Plants which require sea water must naturally locate on the coast.  The abun-

dance of coal makes the West Virginia-Pennsylvania area particularly desirable

for some organic chemical producers, while the abundance of petroleum makes

the Gulf Coast extremely desirable for the petrochemical industry.  Sulfur is

obtained from underground deposits in Texas and Louisiana; salt from brine

wells and mines in Michigan, New York, Ohio, Louisiana and Texas, as well as

from solar evaporation of sea water in California and from Great Salt Lake,

Utah; phosphate rock from Florida, Tennessee and the Rocky Mountains; and

potash from New Mexico, California and Utah.  The following list of the top

ten states in chemical construction illustrates the importance of the avail-

ability of raw materials to the petrochemical industry.

                        (1958 MCA Construction Survey)

                                              (In Thousands)

                   Texas                        $662,323
                   Louisiana                     473,200
                   California                    144,710
                   Tennessee                     142,576
                   West Virginia                 136,650
                   Ohio                          134,900
                   Pennsylvania                  127,190
                   New Jersey                    117,114
                   Illinois                      114,850
                   Florida                       113,625

       The availability of low-cost and abundant fuel and power is influential

in locating a chemical plant.  Many have located in certain areas where raw

materials, such as coal, petroleum and natural gas are present, and these raw

materials can also be used as inexpensive sources of fuel and power.

       Low-cost transportation facilities are important to the chemical industry.

The lack of inexpensive modes of transportation has hindered the establishment

of chemical plants in some areas.  The cost of transporting raw materials and

the finished product must be compared when determining a suitable location.  If

the packaged product has a higher freight rate, it is probably more economical

to locate near the market and ship raw materials.


       In 1954 the chemical industry, one of the Nation's major water-using

industries, used 24 per cent of the total industrial water intake, or 2,827

billion gallons.—'  The greater percentage of this water is used for cooling.

To produce 100 pounds of ascorbic acid, for example, requires 85,000 gallons

of water; to produce 100 pounds of bromine requires 250,000 gallons of water.

This stresses the need for an adequate water supply in the selection of a

chemical site.—'

       The number of suitable sites with good quality water supplies is de-

creasing, because in many instances municipal and industrial wastes receive

inadequate treatment prior to discharge and cause serious degradation of

receiving streams into which they are released.  Since these streams are often

the only source of water for potential industrial development downstream, the

number of industries that can use the lower quality water is limited.  Closer

attention is being focused on this situation.  More stringent laws are being

passed and stricter enforcement of existing legislation is resulting in the

improvement of conditions that have plagued entire river basins for decades.

New industrial plants are active in the development of the most advanced equip-

ment for pollution abatement or avoidance procedures.  In some areas, strict

waste disposal regulations are imposed on chemical plants.  This is especially

true on the Ohio River from Pittsburgh to Cincinnati; the Delaware River from

Phillipsburg to the Delaware Bay; the Susquehanna River from Harrisburg to

Chesapeake Bay; Lake Erie near Cleveland; and the Houston Ship Canal.


       As in the petroleum industry, markets are becoming increasingly important,

Nearness to markets and supplies are especially important if water transporta-

tion is unavailable.

       Many skilled and technical workers are needed in the chemical industry.

Of a total of 846,400 employees in May 1959, over 60 per cent are production

workers, many of whom are highly skilled.  Administrative, scientific, sales

and executive positions make up the remainder.  The largest part of the plant

workers are process workers, who operate chemical and mechanical equipment.

Because of the highly technical and varied nature of the industry's operations

and products, it is often necessary for employees in administrative, purchasing,

sales or legal capacities to have scientific or engineering backgrounds.—'

Important Factors

       Nearness to supplies and maintenance services are important in selecting

a location.  The direction of prevailing winds, which may carry objectionable

odors to the surrounding areas, must certainly be appraised in this type of


Factors to be Considered

       Factors to be considered include land values, local ordinances, zoning,

homes for workers and community attitudes.

                           Iron and Steel Industry

       The iron and steel industry in the United States is basic to the Nation's

economy and to its standard of living.  Spreading to all four corners of the

country, steel producing facilities are located in 31 states.  They are con-

centrated in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, which have 27 per cent,

20 per cent, 12 per cent and 9 per cent of the Nation's output, respectively.

The others have considerably less.—7

       The essential requirements for this industry are the availability of

raw materials, markets, transportation, water, fuel, waste disposal, and labor.

Important requirements are maintenance and service facilities.  Factors to be

considered are living conditions, taxes, and local laws,.

Essential Requirements

       Of the essential requirements, the availability of raw materials,

particularly ore, coal and limestone, has probably played the most important

part in determining the steel-making centers of the United States.

       For every ton of pig iron produced, three to four tons of raw materials

are needed.  High quality iron ore deposits are found in northern Minnesota and

Michigan.   The value of iron ore extraction in Minnesota ranged between

$350,000,000 and $550,000,000 annually between 1951 and 1957.£/  In Michigan,

the value ranged between $75,000,000 and $105,000,000 annually during the same

period3J  Ninety per cent of all the coal mined in the United States is mined


in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Virginia, West Virginia and Kentucky.

Rich limestone deposits are found in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio.  Because

of the geographical separation of these areas, one or more of the raw materials

must be transported by rail, water, or both.  Since coal is lighter and takes

up more room than iron ore, it is generally more economical to locate mills

closer to the coal supplies than to the iron ore mines, even though the quantity

of iron ore required in the process is greater than the coal.  However, in some

cases coal is moved to the ore, and in others both are moved to a junction

point.  Before the utilization of electric power in the industry, steel-making

facilities also depended on the coal fields as a source of power.

       Many steel plants, as previously mentioned, have concentrated in certain

parts of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York and West Virginia.

The raw materials are relatively accessible from these areas, since the Great

Lakes provide a convenient means of transportation.

       The proximity of steel-producing centers to the market is another

essential factor.  A densely populated territory or a general industrial area

is often a good location since scrap iron, which can be used as a raw material,

and markets are both available.  Plants located on the Atlantic Coast can

readily receive foreign iron ore supplies from Venezuela and Labrador-Quebec

and in turn can supply the Eastern market with steel and steel products.


       The presence of raw materials and the nearness of markets have led to

the establishment of steel mills in the Birmingham, Alabama, region.  This area

has substantial deposits of iron ore, coal and limestone, which are closer

together than in any other area of the United States.  Lone Star Steel located

in Dangerfield, Texas, because this area has deposits of iron ore and limestone

and transports coal from nearby Oklahoma.  Located in one of the richest oil

fields in the world, Lone Star produces iron casings, drills and other related

products to supply the available market.—'

       Economical transportation is an essential requirement to this industry.

Its raw materials, and most of its products, have a low unit value in proportion

to their weight.  Without low-cost convenient transportation, production costs

would rise enormously and make steel a less economical product.

       The industry transports its finished product by rail, truck or water.

Water transportation, however, is used whenever possible, as it is most


       Water is extremely important to the iron and steel industry.  It is used

in a number of ways, particularly for cooling blast furnaces.  A furnace with

a capacity of 1,000 tons of iron a day uses from 1,400 to 65,000 gallons of

water in 24 hours.2.'  Approximately 80 per cent of the water used is reused,

                                                                            2 /
and only leakage and evaporation losses of some 15 per cent must be made up.—'


       Most  types  of  fuel, including coal, coke,  gases,  fuel oil, natural gas

and electricity, are  used in  steel production.  However, within the last ten

years  the  industry has become one of the country's  top consumers of electricity.

       Stream pollution arising  from the extensive  operations of the iron and

steel  industries has  produced a  need for adequate waste disposal capabilities.

The most objectionable characteristic of the wastes is the suspended solids,

which  are  mainly particles of ore and coke.  Some of  these solids settle readily

and form a coating on the bottom of the lake or river.  These deposits are

destructive  to  bottom organisms  which are an important source of fish foods.

The suspended solids  also add a  deep gray or black  appearance to the water,

making it  unsatisfactory for  recreational uses and  aesthetic conditions.—'

       Phenols  and cyanides may  also be present in  the wastes.  These chemicals

not only are toxic to aquatic life, but can be a  menace  to public water supplies

and bathing  facilities.  Therefore, a suitable means  for disposing of waste

water  from iron and steel mills  is a necessity.—'

       Steel mills require the service of men skilled not only in steel-making

processes, but  in  many other  lines.  About 1,200  separate and distinct jobs are

to be  found  in  the plants and offices of the iron and steel industries.—

Important  Factors

       Maintenance and service facilities are important  to this industry.

Factors to be Considered

       Living conditions, taxes  and local laws are  factors to be considered.


                         Plant Location Factors in Texas

        The significance of the many factors which influence the location of

 new plants, mills and factories in Texas has been brought out by the Texas

 Engineering Experiment Station in a report entitled An Evaluation of Plant

 Location Factors in Texas.

        Questionnaires were sent to 850 manufacturers throughout the State.

 These manufacturers were to indicate, in order of importance, the five basic

 reasons for the location of their establishments.  Three hundred and fifty

 questionnaires were selected and classified according to the Standard

 Industrial Classification List into 14 groups.  The industrial groups, number

 of returns in each group, and percentage of total in the State are shown below.

 Iron and steel firms were omitted in this survey.

                                                      No. of       Per Cent of
            Industry Group^                           Returns     Total in State

 1.  Food & kindred products                           38              3.5
 2.  Textile mill products                             10             17.2
 3.  Apparel products                                  22              7.7
 4.  Nonapparel textile products                        8             12.9
 5.  Lumber and wood products (except furniture)       22              3.3
 6.  Furniture and fixtures                            19              8.7
 7.  Paper products                                    13             27.0
 8.  Chemicals and allied products                     41             15.1
 9.  Petroleum products                                11             11.7
10.  Rubber products                                   13             81.2
11.  Stone, glass and clay products                    28             13.3
12.  Fabricated metals (except machinery and
      transportation equipment)                        66             25.5
13.  Machinery (except electrical)                     31              8.7
14.  Miscellaneous                                     28             21.2
     TOTAL                                            75U             "778"


       To obtain the relative weight, each locational factor was tabulated

according to the position assigned it by the respondent firms.  A factor in

first position was given a value of five; those in following positions were

given values of four, three, two and one, respectively.

       Results of the survey are shown in the following figures by industrial


       The paper and paper products industries in Texas are primarily concerned

with markets, and labor and distribution facilities.  See Figure 1.  Since the

pulp industries are not considered, raw materials, transportation and water are

rated lower than they would normally be in the pulp and paper industry.

       The importance of raw materials, transportation and markets is revealed

in the eleven returns of the petroleum products industry.  See Figure 2.

       The chemical industry has developed in Texas in recent years because of

the availability of raw materials, presence of a growing market and good trans-

portation facilities.  See Figure 3.

       It is apparent that when all industries of Texas are considered, market,

labor and raw materials are the three most important location factors.  Water

is of minor importance in the location of an industry within this State.

Waste disposal capabilities was not on the list of factors.  See Figure 4.


1.  Economic theory of industrial location is based on the

    maximization of the investment situation as determined

    by the profit margin; that is, achievement of the widest

    spread possible between cost and income or revenue.

2.  Seldom does one factor alone play the decisive part in

    determining a plant location.  A combination of factors

    which will bring the greatest monetary returns will govern

    the choice of the site.

3.  Heavy water-using industries are generally located near

    their source of raw materials, because their kind of

    process generally involves bulky and costly-to-move raw

    materials, as compared to the finished products.

4.  An adequate water supply is essential for all industries,

    but it is only when all other factors are equal among

    several locations that abundant and cheap water plays

    a decisive role in industrial location.  Factors such

    as the availability of raw materials, proximity to

    markets and inexpensive transportation must be present

    in conjunction with the water or the site is infeasible.

5.  Heavy water use means large volumes of liquid  waste with

    attendant problems of satisfactory disposal.   Sites with

    adequate waste disposal capabilities for the heavy water-

    using industries are becoming scarce.   With strict regula-

    tions against pollution, the problem is still  present.

    Therefore, waste disposal is a significant  factor in

    locating an industry.






                                      FIGURE I


















^^ -^S g^
* ^h m^^
•A* Ci C*
p /• v^^v
1 1 1 1 1 /I"
                                                    FIGURE 2



Sa 15



 ^ /
 O5  t>^

0- x^_

                                                    FIGURE 3


S  }5

- //









*£/ ^ y ,.

/V\ , \/y »^. .  jrjp **? JQ ^^ ^ ^r
// '/; /-V/ J**^ *^ ^^ ^«^
jrj> // O v^ ft /• \ X^" r^
                                                   FIGURE 4

 1.  Unpublished Data, I. J. Pickl, Professor of Economics,
     Southern Methodist University.

 2.  Albert S. Carlson, Economic Geography of Industrial
     Materials. New York, Reinhard Publishing Corp., 1956.

 3.  Gilbert F. White, Industrial Water Use. A Review.
     American Geographical Society, 1960.

 4.  U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census,
     Statistical Abstract of the United States. 1960.

 5.  Minerals Yearbook. Vol. Ill, "Area Reports," U. S.
     Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines, 1950-1958.

 6.  Edward L. Allen, Economics of American Manufacturing.
     New York, Henry Holt and Company, 1952.

 7.  Unpublished Data, Maritime Administration, U. S. Depart-
     ment of Commerce, Washington, D. C.

 8.  Seeley W. Mudd Series, Economics of the Mineral Industries.
     New York, The American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical,
     and Petroleum Engineers, Inc., 1959.

 9.  The Chemical Industry Fact Book. Fourth Edition, Washing-
     ton, D. C., Manufacturing Chemists' Association, Inc.,

10.  Unpublished Data, C. A. Webster, Public Relations Depart-
     ment, Lone Star Steel Company, Dallas, Texas.

11.  Blast Furnaces. "An Industrial Waste Guide to the Blast
     Furnace Department of the Steel Industry," Federal
     Security Agency, Public Health Service, Cincinnati, Ohio,





                                Walter R. Hager
                           Water Resources Section
               Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control
                       Public Health Service, Region VII
              U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare

       Much has been said about projections of growth and water requirements

for the heavily populated, highly industrialized portions of our Nation - the

SMAs (Standard Metropolitan Areas), while little emphasis has been given to

the many small cities, towns, and villages outside of the SMAs.  The interven-

ing areas served by these less populous municipalities are, after all, the

largest part of the Nation in terms of land area.  Furthermore, approximately

38 per cent of our population lives and works outside of the 209 SMAs - out in

the boondocks.

What method has been used in projecting population, manufacturing and water


       To date, projections for population have been founded upon growth trends

established over the years, while industrial change has been predicated upon

evaluation of manufacturing employment conditions.  Water demands for the

metropolitan areas can be and are projected through statistical analyses of

population growth trends and employment patterns.

Why not apply this method for population, employment and manufacturing, and

water demand projections of non-metropolitan areas?

       In contrast to the metropolitan areas' steady growth, many small cities

and towns have experienced sharp declines in population, even to going out of

existence; while others have just stood still.  In the latter case, it seems

that every time someone comes to town, someone also leaves.  Still, other areas

grow and expand after many years of little change in population or industrial

complexion.  This situation with respect to the outlying areas limits the use

of a statistical analysis method, since population trends are not clearly

defined.  Employment and manufacturing patterns seem to be almost as uninterpret-

able.  Since many of our small towns have just recently gained industries,

projections would have to be based upon only a smattering of data.  The problem

of sketchy municipal water use data is also a factor.

How much municipal water demand can be expected to develop for even the largest

of the towns in the boondocks?

       The municipal systems serving the major communities in the non-metropolitan

areas seldom have an average (yearly) demand above 6 to 8 mgd (based on maximum

population of 50,000).

This seems like a drop in the bucket compared to the projected Dallas-Tarrant

County 2010 demand of 1502 mgd.  Are there other significant factors?

       Yes, one industry of the principal water using class can completely

overshadow municipal water requirements for the area in which it is located.

Further, these municipalities are, more often than not, located some distance

from a major watercourse.  This can create waste disposal problems, since large

industrial water requirements may result in large quantities of industrial

wastes without a suitable point of discharge.  This aspect of water use is all

too frequently overlooked.

If the statistic analysis and ratio of employment growth methods of population

projection are not entirely applicable for the outlying area, what approach can

be used?

       Certainly, the population requires a means of livelihood.  The industries

which provide employment generally develop, prosper, and grow as a result of .

many factors.  While these factors vary from one type of industry to another,

most fall into one of three broad categories — market oriented, labor oriented,

or resource oriented.  All of these major factors are essential to every

industrial operation.

How do these affect development of outlying areas?

       Since the outlying areas are by comparison to SMAs sparsely populated

markets, most of the strictly market-oriented industries seem to locate in or

near the big market centers, the SMAs.  The second factor, labor, may or may

not favor a particular region.  But almost without exception, the metropolitan

areas have a great advantage over the boondocks in supplying industries' demand

for labor.

       The third factor, resources, is the key to most of the projected municipal

and industrial water requirements for the outlying areas.  An inventory of an

area's or region's resources will serve as a guide to future developments.

These resources can be divided into two groups - depletive and non-depletive.

       Depletive resources play an important role in a region's short-term

(or even long-term, depending upon the reserves and operation) development

though they may not noticeably affect water requirements.  These resources are

mined, i. e.,are not regenerative, and include petroleum, natural gas, natural-

gas liquids, ooal, sand and gravel to name only a few.

       Non-depletive resources are found throughout our Nation and are

renewable.  These include soil, forests, climate (temperature, growing season,

etc.), and water.  Agriculture is the backbone of the outlying areas, providing

an economic base for many small towns.  As the local agricultural economy goes,

so goes theirs.

       An inventory of resources and existing utilization, population, and

employment can be analyzed and correlated  to establish future trends in pro-

duction, employment, and water requirements.

Which resources can affect employment and population growth, and, more

important, will require significant quantities of water for utilization?

       It is generally true that when raw materials are perishable or bulky or

have a high degree of weight loss in processing, the initial step of the manu-

facturing process is carried out close to  the raw material source.  There is

no question that this factor is of major importance in projecting industrial

development and expansion in outlying areas.  There is hardly a major water

using industry in the non-metropolitan area that is not directly based on

local agriculture, forestry or mineral raw materials.  The fact is, existence

of and access to an abundance of perishable, bulky, or low yield raw materials
not only have been basic to the growth of manufacturing in the boondocks, but

will determine the direction of industrial development and to some degree its

rate of growth.

       While the extraction and manufacture of goods from raw materials are

significant in projecting employment and population trends, they do not

necessarily influence water requirements.  There are, however, two industrial

classifications which are heavy water users and have large segments which are

invariably located outside of SMA.S - Food and Beverage (20) and Pulp and

Paper (26).

Considering the pulp and paper products category, first, (since pulp mills are

found in all Public Health Service regions, see Map A) - where does water fit

into this manufacturing process?

       The largest part of this industry's water demand is associated directly

with the production of wood pulp from bolts of cordwood.  This substantial

water use is further a part of the paper-making process.  Once the paper is

made, there is little water required for conversion of the paper (or paperboard)

to cups, plates, boxes, bags, and the numerous useful items fabricated from


       Fulpwood is a resource which is both bulky and has quite a loss in the

initial processing stage.  Therefore, most pulp mills are located in or near

forests.  Since water is the conveying medium for paper making, the pulp is

more often than not passed right on to a paper mill, see Figures 1 and 2.

(When this is done it is called an integrated pulp and paper mill.)

HQw__c_an regional production for this industry be projected?

       The amount of pulp and paper production which an area will support is a

function of yield from the forests in the region.  For example, the forests

of southern Arkansas with good management can produce about one cord per acre

per year without depletion.  This production rate is based on pine rather than

hardwoods (which are slower growing).  The kraft paper industry in the South

is built and expanding on this resource.  Presently, the yield in this area is

but half of this amount since there is little or no management practiced on




             VA A  A A

                                                            FIGURE 2
                                  Schematic diagram of a multi-cylinder paperboard machine. The basic
                                  difference between this and a Fourdrinier machine is the manner in
                                  which the web (paperboard) is formed.
                                                                             Felt and drying
                                                                             rolls are similar
                                                                             to those used
                                                                             with a
Stock preparation with beaters,Jordan, stock chest and consistency
regulators is similar to that used with Fourdrinier paper machines.
(See Fig.l)
yooo <-
D n
       WIRE  PIT
         PRESS FELT
                     FIGURE  1
most of the acreage, in private ownership.  However, reserves are being built

and, as the market for pulpwood expands, expectations are that increased

efficiency will materialize.

       An additional factor in projecting pulp and paper production is the

portion of the timber which will go into lumber and other wood products.  Pro-

jection  for lumber utilization (and employment) should be tied in with the

pulp production projections.   Currently, the split is about 50-50 in the forests

of Region VII.  Since the type of timber and complexion of the forest products

industry vary from region to region and even within a region, each project area

should be studied and projected on its own merits.  Cordwood production can

then be converted to product output by determining the wood - product ratio.

In southwestern Arkansas, the kraft process predominates with a present ratio

of about 1.75 cords per ton of product.

Can these timber and production data be translated into water demand projections?

       Water requirements for the pulp and paper industry's development can be

projected on a gallons per ton of production basis.  The predominant process

Used to produce pulp (and paper) from the type of pulpwood available in the

area can be studied to provide the projected water requirement.  Although the'

paper-making process is constantly being improved, there do not ap'pea't to' be

many ways of water saving beyond those now in use.  The majority1 o'f the' require-

ments are for conveying and washing the fiber sto'ck.  As the titimb'er o'f conveying

steps and washings increases, so does the amount of water required.  Groundwood

pulp requites the least; soda pulp the' mo'st.


How do the water quality requirements for pulp and paper production compare to

the Public Health Service drinking water standards?

       Water quality requirements for pulp and paper production are more

restrictive in many respects, particularly chlorides and other corrosive elements,

iron, manganese, hardness, turbidity, and color content.  Until recently, the

mills in this region predominantly used ground water, but production expansion

programs have resulted in switches to high quality surface supplies.

At this point, consideration must be given to the effect the waste loading

from this industrial activity will have on the basin downstream.  Will the

wastes resulting from this use of water over-load the receiving stream's

waste assimilating capacity even after 90 per cent of the B.O.D. has been


       Although the pulp and paper industry requires an extremely high quality

of water for production, the wastes produced by its operations are perhaps the

most difficult to handle in terms of quantity and pollutional characteristics.

An average raw waste has a population equivalent of 300 per ton of production

(50# B.O.D./ton).  Although, each mill has a distinctive waste characteristic,

a study of the region's paper making processes will provide an insight into

projected waste production founded on the previously developed data.  Return

flows are usually on the order of 90 per cent of raw water requirements.

       Much research has been conducted by the industry on these wastes and

treatment methods have been developed with appropriate engineering guides.

There is one characteristic, however, which at present defies economically

feasible removal from kraft wastes - color.  The level of concentration for

this characteristic of kraft waste varies upward from 250 color units.  This

color is derived from the extraction of lignins and tannins (in the pulping

process) and is chemically similar to swamp drainage.  This color rules out

most municipal and industrial reuse (except cooling water) at this level,  and

is aesthetically objectionable.  Since biological waste treatment will not

reduce color, the receiving stream must provide enough dilution to reduce  the

color to a reasonable level (say 50 to 75).  Thus, the waste disposal aspect of

pulp and paper making may be more of a controlling factor than water supply.

       As the result of research by the pulp and paper industry several

processes for removal of color from kraft mill effluent have been developed

and tested in pilot plants.  All were found to have serious drawbacks.

Presently a color removal process incorporated in the causticizing flow sheet,

based upon lime recovery, is being tested on a plant scale.  Although reports

indicate some bugs in the process, the feeling of those working with the

process is that a solution to the color removal problem can be found.


Everything up to this point has turned on projected water requirements for

production.  Are there other uses for these data?

       These projections can be related to employment and population projections

for the region under consideration.  Paper mill towns in the boondocks have, to

date, tended to be dominated by this one industry.  Often related operations

take root adjacent to the mill, but these do not exert a significant water

demand although providing employment.  The employment to population ratio can

be established and projections made accordingly.

       In this way, timber resources, product demand, production, industrial

water requirements, employment, municipal population, municipal water require-

ments, and waste loadings can be tied together, compared with national and

regional factors, and projected as required.

       We are all aware that these figures will not make these projections work

out in themselves, but they appear to be the controlling factors in development

of this industry with its associated employment and effect on population in

outlying areas to date.

       The other industrial segment which can have a great impact on water

requirements in the outlying areas is classified under food and beverages -

more particularly food processing and canning.


What role does water play in the canning and food processing industry?

       This industry's operation is similar to that of the pulp and paper

industry.  The majority of the water requirements are for conveying and washing

of the raw materials and product - fruits and vegetables.  The operation is

seasonal, but large quantities are required during this relatively short time.

On what basis can water requirements be projected?

       The approach for projecting production, employment, etc. can parallel

that of the pulp and paper industry.  Projections can be founded on productivity

of the soil and type of crop best suited to local conditions.  The production

and employment pattern for the agricultural industry will  be discussed by

Bill Eichberger.  Projected product demands and production figures can be

converted to area output in tons or cases or some other convenient unit of

measure.  While we do not have much data on water requirements, we do have data

on waste quantities.  Approximately 95 per cent of the water requirement in this

industry is released as waste.   Table 1 illustrates typical quantities and

characteristics encountered.  Local conditions may indicate variation from these

amounts.  As with pulp and paper, employment can be tied to Output and projected

accordingly.  However, this employment pattern is complicated by the fact that

this industry is seasonal and will probably not support as much service -

related employment, and population per employee as pulp and paper.  Details

will vary somewhat with locale^ however, projections can be made on this basis.


                      (From Rudolf's Industrial Wastes)
Volume Per Case
 5-Day BOD
Suspended Solids
Apples, sauce
Beans, green or wax
Beans, lima

Beans, baked
Corn, cream style
Corn, whole kernel

Cherries, sour

Potatoes, sweet
Potatoes, white
Tomatoes, whole
Tomatoes, juice or products












* per ton


Is the food processing industry's waste disposal situation also like that of

the pulp and paper industry?

       Waste disposal for the canning industry poses a different sort of

problem than that encountered in pulp and paper industry projections.  In most

cases, water use and waste production are seasonal with low stream flows and

high waste production coinciding.  Waste treatment methods have been worked

out.  However, due to the concentration and quantity of the wastes produced,

careful analysis of the ratio of waste flow to stream flow are in order if

stream quality is to be maintained downstream from the demand centers.

       Compilation of the data outlined will provide a basis for projecting

water requirements in the boondocks.  Special situations do exist; however,

the general approach outlined here should provide a basis for projecting pro-

duction, employment, water requirements and waste loads for those industries

and areas.  The technique explored here for a specific part of our work has

been used in various forms with an array of parameters for many years in

"Water Requirements Survey" work in the southwest.

Are there any problems associated with this approach to water requirement

projections for the boondocks?

       Although this technique will yield a fairly good projection of areal

water requirements in the long run, it dues not furnish a clue as to when and

where this demand will develop.  Pulp and paper water demands can go from

nothing to 50 mgd with the construction of just one big mill or it could

develop in medium sized increments.  Local management may be able to furnish


the answer; however, they are prone to keep long range plans to themselves

for competitive reasons.  A local management interview will not be possible

when no mill now exists in the project study area having a projected potential.

In summary, on what bases can water requirements for an outlying area be


       There are 4 general steps which can be used to project water requirements

for the boondocks —

       (1)  The area's resource inventory holds the key to its growth and


       (2)  The area's water using resource oriented industry (or industries)

            play a vital role in determining future water requirements.  Pulp

            and paper production and food processing are outstanding examples

            of this type of industry.  Water requirements can be projected

            directly for these industries.

       (3)  Employment and population patterns can be founded on the resource

            base for relatively remote communities.  Municipal water demands

            can be projected proportionate to population to be served.

       (4)  Waste loadings to be released can be predicated on industrial

            water use and municipal water demand.


What one factor will have more effect on projected water requirements for the

boondocks than any other?

       Insofar as projections of water requirements for the boondocks are

concerned, it would appear that, in Region VII, waste disposal (stream

quality maintenance) will be more of a controlling factor than any other.  How

about your area?




                                             by Dr. Willis G. Eichberger, Economist,
                                                Water Supply and Pollution Control,
                                                Public Health Service, Region IV



       As long as water is in abundant supply to meet the demands of all water

uses or purposes, demand for water presents no problem.  It is only when

supply is small relative to demand, so that competitive alternatives exist,

that concern over use of water occurs.  In many, and probably most, parts

of the United States today water supplied to meet demands of all legitimate

water uses are limited either quantitatively or qualitatively.  Because of

these limitations on water supplies and because of increasing demands for

goods and services produced by water resources, we must consider the

possibility of obtaining the greatest possible benefit from our water

resource supplies.

       In any given area water use is rarely, if ever, confined to a single

purpose.  It is used for human consumption and other necessities of human

livelihood, animal consumption, industrial production, power production,

waste disposal, navigation, irrigation, recreation, fish and wildlife habitat,

and many other uses too numerous to mention here.  Any or all of these uses

present no problem as long as the quantity and quality of water required for

each purpose is sufficient to meet the demand.  It is only when quantitative

or qualitative restraints are placed on the supply that choices must be made

between alternative uses.  When limitations become operative it becomes

necessary to establish criteria to specify efficient use of the diminishing

supply.  These criteria should serve as the basic framework, consistent with

needs, laws, and policies, for modifying physical means of water use.  In the

field of water resource investigations inquiry should be focused initially on

water supply, total demand for water, value of water for particular uses from

the public point of view, and costs (private and public) of particular uses.

Finally, efficient allocation of scarce water supplies between competing uses

should be based on the principle of maximization of economic welfare.   Before

we can deal intelligently with the problem of efficient allocation of  our

water supplies among the various competing uses of water, it is necessary to

make educated guesses as to the future demand of each alternative use.

       Agriculture is the largest single water user of any industry in the

United States.  In 1955, eleven western states supported about 25.5 million

people.  These states withdrew about 104 billion gallons of water per  day

from surface and underground supplies.  In the same year, the eleven most

populous eastern states supported about 78.5 million people.  These states

withdrew about 68.5 billion gallons of water per day.  Thus the eleven western

states used 4,112 gallons per capita per day as compared to 872 gallons per

capita per day for the eastern states.  This difference in per capita  use is
attributable almost entirely to irrigation requirements.

                              PROJECTING FUTURE REQUIREMENTS

       Because our water resources investigations must necessarily be  con-

cerned with the future, it is necessary to make estimates or projections of

future demands for water for agricultural uses.  These demands will be

determined by farm population, numbers and kinds of livestock on farms, and

the acreage and kinds of crops expected to be grown.  In the arid west and

in those parts of the humid east where rainfall is improperly distributed

seasonally for optimum crop production, irrigation will be a big factor in
.!/ Irving K. Fox.  Water - Supply, Demand, and the Law.  Resources for the
   Future, Inc.  Washington, 1960.


water use.

       In order to project future demand for water for agricultural uses, it

is necessary to study the agriculture of the area under consideration to

(1) get a good picture of the agricultural industry; (2) analyze the changing

trends in agriculture; (3) assist in the determination of agricultural

population and employment; and (4) determine the type and volume of agri-

cultural production and the potential for agricultural production.  Before

attempting to analyze the changing trends in agricultural production, and

before their significance can be fully comprehended, it is important to

understand the forces to which they respond.  Perhaps the most important

and certainly the most obvious change in the agricultural economy has been

caused by the impact of technological innovations.  The widespread adoption

of mechanization and improved farming methods has displaced a considerable

number of agricultural workers.  Some of this displaced labor has been

assimilated by other industries and some has become surplus to the area.

Furthermore, mechanization has materially increased agricultural production,

both in terms of output per man hour and in terms of total output.  Even

though the acreage of cropland has remained stable.or, as in some areas, has

declined, agricultural production efficiency has increased.   This increased

efficiency is largely attributable to mechanization, although increased use

of commercial fertilizers, improved farming methods, soil conservation

practices, and other innovations have also been contributing factors.

       Mechanization, however, has not been equally rewarding in all lines of

agricultural production.   Increases in physical productivity of labor en-

gaged in livestock production have not kept pace with increases in outputi-from


labor engaged in crop production even though improved breeding and the develop-

ment of more efficient feeds and feeding have been widely adopted in the

livestock enterprises.  This is because the gains made from improved breeding

and feeding have not resulted in the saving in manhours that have been

realized in crop production from mechanization, even though livestock pro-

duction per manhourr:expended has increased.

       Rather than reducing manhours worked per capita, increased agricul-

tural productivity has resulted in a reduction in the number of farms and

farm population.  Trends in increased productivity indicate a further

reduction in farm population.  There is a limit to labor displacement by

mechanization, however, that many authorities believe is already near.  In

general it can be expected that future technical efficiency will result mainly

in efficiency through increased production!! rather than in efficiency  gained

by further reduction of labor.  Increased efficiencies can be expected from

technical improvement and mechanization in newer methods of vertical inte-

gration in livestock production.

       Analysis and understanding of the forces that condition trends in

agricultural production assist in making explicit assumptions regarding

future agricultural output.  These assumptions may be stated as follows:

1.  The downward trend in employment caused by increasing mechanization will

    continue, but farm population should level off and may even increase in

    response to increased demands for foodstuffs.

2.  Improved soil conservation practices, already implemented in so many

    areas, will be even more widespread.


3.  The trend Coward diversification of crops will continue.

4.  Better plant and animal breeding will help to increase farm production

    •and income under normal conditions.

5.  Higher yields per acre through use of commercial fertilizers and irrigation

    and higher yields per man because of mechanization are trends which will


    These assumptions are prerequisite to projections of farm population,

farm employment, and potential of agricultural production.  They do not,

however, lead to a formulation of projected needs for agricultural produc-

tion.  Additional assumptions are necessary relative to the needs for certain

types of production that help to explain trends in changes in agriculture.

Based on what we know about population growth, industrial development,

personal incomes, and rising standards of living, we can set forth the follow-

ing postulates:

1.  Considerable increase in whole milk production can be expected in response

    to the increase in size of nearby urban areas.  Considerable increase

    in vegetable production can be expected also with higher personal incomes

    and higher living standards.

2.  Continued emphasis on livestock production for meat, particularly in

    those areas where potential increases in capacity of the land are great,

    can be expected.

3.  Agriculture will continue as a major support of the economy in many areas,

    but it is not likely to continue to account for ssclarge a percentage of

    total income as it has in the past.


    All of the factors considered in the agricultural economics analysis must

lead primarily to two considerations:  (1) The forecasting of the potential

and the probable extent of agricultural production in the future; and (2) the

number of people employed in agriculture.  The latter is important to the

consideration of municipal and industrial' water supply because a segment of

the population of each area will be engaged in serving agriculture.  In

addition, water required for agricultural uses may have tremendous impact on

water supply available for other uses and on total water demand.  Before it

is possible to determine the impact of  water requirements for agriculture

on total water demand we must get some idea of the agricultural requirements

for water.  This will involve making projections of total farm population

and numbers and kinds of livestock to determine domestic water requirements,

and of the amount of water required for irrigation.  Total domestic water

requirements can be estimated by applying per capita use rates to population

and livestock.  Per capita use per person for personal and household uses

can be expected to be in the neighborhood of 100 gallons per day by the year

2000.  An estimate of livestock requirements can be obtained by application

of the following factors: for one milk cow (for drinking and washing utensils)

35 gallons per day; for one beef cow or horse, 12 gallons per day; for one

hog, 4 gallons; for one sheep, 2 gallons; and for 100 chickens, 7 gallons.

    Data on the amount of irrigation water needed for each acre of land are

available from several sources.  The best data on water requirements are

those obtained from successful farmers who have reliable water supplies in
21 Planning an Automatic Water System.  The Penn. State University, Coll. of
   Agr.  Agr. Exp.  Sta. Cir. 382, May, 1951.  University Park, Penn.


the general area under study.  Experiment station records on irrigation use,

when adapted to actual farming practices, are also helpful in estimating

farm delivery requirements.  Considerable data on irrigation requirements

are available from the Bureau of Reclamation! Department of Agriculture,
and State agricultural colleges.    The data available will lead to a

determination of present total water requirements for irrigation which

includes not only farm consumptive use but also farm losses and irrigation

system delivery losses.  What we are concerned with, however, is total irri-

gation requirements in the future.  Here again, technology must be taken

into consideration.  Crop adaptation and improvement, pest control,

adequate fertilization, and erosion control have removed many previous

barriers to sustained high yields, particularly in the eastern United States.

Engineers and other scientists are continually working on techniques of re-

ducing irrigation system losses and farm irrigation water losses.  Assumptions

regarding the extent to which these irrigation losses may be reduced in the

future are necessary to a projection of future irrigation requirements.

                             IMPACTS ON QUALITY AND QUANTITY

       The expanded use of pesticides may increase crop yields but the

increase in yields may be at the expense of impaired quality of water for

other uses.  Existing evidence indicates that in areas where pesticides

are used in large quantities, runoff from these areas contains enough of

the undesirable soluble material that water quality is impaired.  Available
3./  Water Facts for the Nation's Future:.   Langbein and Hoyt.  Chap. 10
    Ronald Press.  New York, 1959.


evidence indicates that ..the natural organic and synthetic organic chemicals

dissolved in the runoff from pesticide-treated areas are not removed by

presently known water treatment methods.  Not enough is yet known about

this problem to determine whether it will have pathological effects on

health.  However, it is a problem with which we must be concerned when

considering the development of surface supplies of water for domestic and

municipal uses in those areas where large amounts of pesticides are

necessary for profitable agricultural production.

       After determination of the amount and distribution of precipitation

in the area the effect of total water requirements for irrigation and farm

domestic use on available water supply and on total water demands can be

determined.  This assumes of course that total water requirements and demands

for other uses have already been determined.  However, knowing the require-

ments for each use and the impact of the demands of each purpose on total

available supply does not answer the question of which purposes should be

served or which uses should have priority.

                              ECONOMICS OF ALTERNATIVE USES

       It appears to me that in any water resource investigation the  ques-

tion of priority of use among competing alternative uses is the crucial

issue.  Some ordering of priority in use may be quite easy.  For example,

water use for human consumption undoubtedly has highest priority.

Similarly, control of water to spare human lives in flood has high priority.

Beyond these points, however, ordering of use is not so "clear cut", and

must involve much more study.  To sustain life both food and water are


necessary.  Abundance of both probably will not be possible in years to come.

In addition to food and water, we also need those manufactured goods and

those services provided by our natural resources that will enable us to

maintain the standard of living to which our people have become accustomed

and which have become necessary parts of our lives.  This does not mean

that the highest tail fins on automobiles are necessary, or the most gadgets,

or two cars in every garage, or a country home in the mountains or on the

water front, but rather those things that we have come to feel as necessary

to civilized living.  How can we best control our resources so that we will

be assured of plenty of water for necessary livelihood, plenty of food,

and plenty of essential manufactured goods and still have enough for such

necessary things as recreation and outdoor living and enjoyment?  Many

solutions to this problem are possible.  For example, we might:  (1) Set

priorities on food production and allocate the amount of resources required

to meet the food goals.  (2) Zone the country by regions so that each region

would produce only those things to which it is particularly adapted.  This

would mean producing food only in those areas particularly adapted to food

production of given types with the least input of natural resources.

(3) Divert more of our human and financial resources to research in the field

of new synthetic foods.  (4) Let  the pricing mechanism, and where inappli-

cable, legal and social means, be the guiding criterion for resource

allocation.  Because the latter appears to be the most practicable and the

most palatable from the standpoint of a democratic way of life, I should like

to pursue this possibility a little later.


       If we are to attain the goal of maximization of economic welfare we

must allocate water resources to alternative uses in such a manner that the

goal will be realized.  The objective to be attained is to help maximize

economic welfare of society in total.  This requires getting the proper

balance between uses and weighing the gains from each use against the cost.

This brings me back to the beginning of this paper - the efficient allocation

of water resources between competing uses which I consider is the first

major condition in meeting the goal of maximization of economic welfare.

       Three steps are necessary to attain this condition of efficient

allocation.  First the determination of the supply of water.  This includes

the total quantity available to the geographic sector under consideration.

It includes also the distribution of the water supply among localities

and seasons of the year and its storage possibilities to alter the supply

between different time periods.  Second, the determination of alternative

uses and the production possibilities of each use of the given water supply.

The nature of these two steps is largely physical although important economic

concepts are involved.  Although these two steps can be accomplished

expeditiously, they have little economic significance.  The third step,

however, is entirely economic and is the real determinant of economic use

of the resource.  The third step is the application of a choice criterion

in determining which uses (or rather the products or services supplied by

each use) are mofit important.  These uses must also be in line with the

relative wants or desires of consumers of the products or services forth-

coming from the uses.  In applying a choice criterion relative weights


or importance are placed upon use.  This generally results not in a

single use but an optimum combination of.uses.  Ordinarily, a single use

will not be extended to the point where it curtails other uses below

socially desirable levels.

       For a given supply of water many alternative uses exist.  Let me

present a simple illustration of the problem in which, for purposes of

simplicity, I will assume only two competing uses.  Assuming that the

supply of water is known, a set of production possibilities exist for its

use.  The water could be used entirely for one use, say irrigation.  Another

alternative might be to use all of the water for another use, say to produce

an industrial product.  Use of all the water for a single purpose would

represent an extreme.  Besides these two extremes many possible combinations

of uses could be made between irrigation and industrial production.  Assuming

that both of these uses results in products for which there is a demand, the

question is:  Which alternative is the optimum or socially desirable


       An answer to this question cannot be given until a choice criterion

is applied.  That is, some social ordering or some relative importance must

be placed on each of the many alternatives.  The selection of alternatives

must befjhect the changing desires of the consumers.  Normally the choice

criterion employed is the pricing mechanism.  Consumers reflect the relative

importance which they attach to each alternative use of water by the prices

they are willing to pay for the products forthcoming from the alternative uses.

If all water available were used by private enterprise to produce commodities

and services for consumers, given a set of prices, the private firms would

produce commodities and services in line with consumer preferences.


       Suppose that for the given supply of water we can produce 100 units

of an agricultural product valued at one dollar per unit which would result

in a total value of production of $100.  The same amount of water will

produce 40 units of an industrial commodity valued at $2.50 per unit

resulting in a total value of production of $100.  If consumers are

completely indifferent as to whether agricultural products or industrial

products were produced with the water, all of the water could be used for

either product and the economic gain would he the same - $100.  However,

man does not live by bread alone;.  The consuming society says that it

wants both agricultural and industrial products.  They place a value on

the industrial product that is 2% times the price of the agricultural

product.  This price ratio.i of 2^ to 1 is the choice criterion which

serves to indicate the optimum use of resources.  It will be to the

consumers advantage to substitute water used for agricultural production

by water used for industrial production as long as the substitution

ratio of agricultural products to industrial products is less than the

price ratio of 2% to 1.

       In our example the water supply is sufficient to produce either

100 units of agricultural product or 40 units of industrial product.  If

all of the water were used for either one or the other the total value

produced would be $100.   Society, however, wants some of both products.

It is possible to produce 90 units of agricultural product and 10 units

of industrial product which will have a total value of $115 with the supply

of water available.  In choosing this alternative, 10 units of agricultural


product are being sacrificed to gain 10 units of industrial product.  This

is a substitution ratio of 1 to 1 which is less than the price ratio of 2%

to 1 and therefore it is to society's advantage to make the substitution.

Another alternative is the production of 70 units of agricultural product

and 20 units of industrial product which results in a total value of pro-

duction of $120.  Here we sacrifice 20 units of agricultural product to

gain 10 units of industrial product.  The substitution ratio is 2 to 1,

which, being less than the price ratio of 2% to 1, is advantageous.  Still

another alternative is the production of 40 units of agricultural product

and 30 units 6f industrial product giving a total value of production of

$115.  In this case 30 units of agricultural product are sacrificed to gain

10 units of industrial product   This is a substitution ratio of 3 to 1

which is more than the price ratio of 2% to 1 and therefore is less desirable

than the production of 70 units of agricultural product and 20 units of in-

dustrial product.  This situation holds generally true for water use: increased

diversion of water for one purpose entails increasing sacrifices in other

uses.  I again emphasize, water used for one purpose should not be extended

to the point where it curtails socially desirable levels of other uses.  In

our example, water used for agricultural production should not be extended

beyond production of 70 units of product so that it will not curtail industrial

production below 20 units of product.  In those alternatives, such as those

used in this example, where products move into the market, the rule should be:

use water for the purpose which has the highest marginal value product.  If

each unit of water were allocated in terms of its marginal value product, a


maximum addition to the social product would be guaranteed in water use.  It

should be emphasized that it is the marginal value productivity and not the

average productivity of water that is important.  Use of the marginal value

productivity takes into account that (1) the physical productivity of water

may decrease as more is used for a particular product and (2) the price

consumers are willing to pay for the product from a particular use of water

may well decline where more of the product is forthcoming.  Thus, the

maximum value of water used for any purpose is determined by the  marginal

value product forthcoming from the last unit of water used.  What does this

mean and how does it work?  Let us assume that in an arid region where crops

cannot be grown without irrigation, 5 units of water are applied to an

agricultural crop.  The total value product for the first unit of water used

is $100; the second unit, $180; the third unit $240; the fourth unit, $280;

and the fifth unit, $300.  The marginal value product for each unit of water

use is $100 for the first unit; $80 for the second; $60 for the third; $40

for the fourth; and $2Q'  for the fifth.  If all of the 5 units of water were

used for agriculture, the total value product would be $300 and the maximum

value of water per unit used would be $20 since that is the marginal value

of product from the last unit of water applied.  This, however, would not

be the most efficient use of the five units of water.  A total value product

of more than $300 could be obtained if the water were not all used for

agriculture.  Suppose that when used for the manufacturing of an industrial

product the 5 units of water produce a total value of $55 for the first unit

of water used;  $100 for the second; $135 for the third; $160 for the fourth;

and $175 for the fifth.  Marginal value products are $55, $45, $35, $25, and


$15.  Since the marginal value products of the first and second units of water

used for the industrial product $55 and $45, are higher than the marginal

value products of the agricultural commodity forthcoming from the fourth and

fifth units of water used, $40 and $20, respectively, it will pay to use

only three units of water for agriculture and two units for production of

the industrial commodity.  Allocated in this way the total value product

from both uses is $340 as compared to $300 when all the water is used by


       Hence, a general principle has been indicated for attainment of the

first major condition - the efficient allocation between competing uses.

The pricing mechanism can be used as the choice criterion reflecting con-

sumer desires to water uses.  However, for many uses of water, the pricing

mechanism cannot be used as a choice indicator.  For example, there is little

opportunity to divert water from irrigation or power production to recrea-

tion purposes.  In some instances, such as in the case of municipal water

supply, prices paid for water are administratively determined and are not

necessarily the prices people would be willing to pay for water produced by

private competitive firms supplying water for municipal needs.

       Although the pricing mechanism is an insufficient basis for final

control of watenuse and allocation, the principle of the choice criterion

should hbt lie discarded.  If the most efficient use or control of water is

to be attained, the pricing mechanism as a choice criterion must be re-

tained.  Where the pricing mechanism is insufficient for measuring and re-

flecting the relative values of water in its different uses, other means of

measurement must be found.  Some means of measuring the relative values or


weights for water uses where the pricing mechanism does not apply must be

found so that relative values can be compared to the production possibilities

of water and a choice of uses made in line with these two phenomena.  In

many cases of water resource development, optimum choices of use will need

to be effected with some combination of price and legal mechanisms.


       In this paper I have attempted to show how we might arrive at the

total water demand for agriculture   Water requirements for agriculture,

being of a physical nature, are not difficult to determine.  After the re-

quirements have been determined it is not a difficult task to determine the

relative effects of water demand for agricultural uses on total water demand

in a quantitative sense.  This determination, however, is not the real problem.

The real problem of effects of water requirements for agriculture on total

demand for water is economic in character and is not so easily determined.

       The real problem facing the American people today in water resource

use and development is:  How should our scarce water resources be used to

the greatest benefit to society?  I have tried to point out some of the con-

siderations that are involved in seeking an answer to this question.  As I

have indicated, insufficient knowledge is as yet available and considerable

work will be required before a satisfactory solution can be attained.
k_l For a more detailed technical discussion see Heady and Timmons, Economic
   Framework for Water Resources.  Iowa's Water Resources.  Iowa State
   College Press, Ames.




                        ESTIMATING FUTURE WATER DEMAND
                              Charles R. Ownbey
                           Water Resources Section
                Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control
                      Public Health Service, Region VII
               U. S. Department of Health, Education, & Welfare

       This paper will present some of the problems typically encountered in

making estimates of the water requirements which may be expected to accompany

the projected populations and economic activities, previously discussed by

Mr. Torget.  The paper is intended to serve as a basis for discussion leading

to conclusions.  It is pointless to deny that I already have certain personal

convictions on the subject	as the reader will no doubt detect.

                                GENERAL OUTLOOK

       We believe that the planning of water resource utilization can and

should be approached with optimism.  A noted spokesman has been widely quoted

as saying, in speeches made throughout the state of Texas this past year:

"Within the next 50 years, the number one problem in Texas may well become,

where to get a good drink of water."  Not to disparage the speaker, whose

purpose to get the attention of a well-fed luncheon audience was admirably

served by this catch phrase, it must be pointed out that drinking water is a

negligible part of total water demands.  To be sure, a prudent man would not

sit down in the middle of a desert, waiting either to have water brought to

him or die of thirst.  But then, he never could do that in the past.

       There is, happily, a growing awareness that water is a commodity like

any other, and can become responsive to the same economic laws that govern other

goods and services.  This viewpoint was ably presented by Mr. Hines, in his

paper, "Role of Price in Water Resource Allocation." —

       This paper is written in the environment of Region VII and some of its

statements may not apply to other parts of the country.  With that qualification,

it can be said that there is ample reason to expect that water can be made

available in quantities sufficient to meet any reasonable projection of demand,

at prices within economic range.  This is said in full knowledge of, and in

spite of, the voices of those whom John Vandertulip—'  has called "Criers of


                         THE COMPONENTS OF WATER USE

       Water serves many purposes, and this discussion is confined to the pro-

jection of municipal-and-industrial water requirements.  The hyphens are there

to emphasize that we seek a single final answer, whose total value will include

all of the water uses which the words municipal and industrial, together or

separately, connote.

I/  Hines, Lawrence G., "Role of Price in Water Resource Allocation",
    Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Divisj.on^ ASCE, January, 1960.

21  Chief Engineer, Texas Board of Water Engineers

       The first sentence of the report to the Select Committee, Print #7, •=•'

reads in part:  "Presented....are data on the quantities....of water presently

supplied through municipal  systems....(and) estimates of the quantities	

required for municipal purposes in....the year 2000....".   (Underlining sup-

plied.)  I suggest that the author changed horses in midstream of that sentence.

Two examples will illustrate the distinction.  At Tulsa, Oklahoma, 38 per cent

of the present output of the municipal water department is  sold to two oil

refineries.  At San Antonio, Texas, the largest department  store has its own

well, as do many other commercial establishments and some residences.  The first

example illustrates municipally-supplied industrial water,  and the second, "self-

supplied" municipal water.

       It is admitted that defining municipal water as water supplied through
"organized community water facilities" —  has advantages.   It facilitates

processing of reported data by machine methods, and it subdues the element of

judgment in statistical analyses.  Nevertheless, it is believed that a preferable

basis for future projections is to subdivide water use according to purpose, and

not according to the modus operandi by which the water is delivered to users.
\l  Future Water Requirements for Municipal Use.   Report by the Department
    of Health, Education, and Welfare, to the Select Committee on National
    Water Resources, United States Senate, published as Committee Print
    No. 7, 1960.
21  Municipal Water Facilities. Communities of_ 25,000 Population and Over...,
""   U. S. Public Health Service, January, 1958.

       Fortunately, it happens that in many cases, and perhaps in a majority of

cases, those industries whose water demands are significantly large, have their

own facilities.  The remaining industries are either so small, or so much a

part of any typical community, that their water use can, without serious error,

be included with other usage in a single municipal figure.  But the investigator

should be on the lookout for exceptions to this generalization, and make appro-

priate adjustments.

       For the type of water resource planning with which we are concerned,

there will be no "self-supplied" users.  The goal of resource planning is to

present an over-all appraisal of supply and demand for a study area.  Supply

can come only from one or both of two sources — surface and ground waters.  Both

sources are supplied by nature, and man can only effect some modification in the

areal and temporal distribution.  Of course, some large streams may require

little or no artificial regulation, but this in no way alters the basic truth.

Water may be self-pumped or self-piped	but it will not be self-supplied.

       For projection purposes, the separation of water demand into a multiplic-

ity of component parts is of questionable merit.  The historical records of

municipal waiter use are of du-bious accuracy even for the1 total quantity used.

Few operating water companies can do"more than guess at how their total output

is divided among'different purposes.  Evidence for'that'statement is to be

found in examination of thfe 1957 Inventory of; Municipal Wa'ter Facilities. —

I/  Ibid.

       Columns  IS and 16 of  the  Inventory  report  the answers to  the question of

how  total output is divided  into four parts:  Domestic  (Residential), Commercial,

Industrial, and Public-and-other.  Approximately  62 per cent, of 580 reporting

communities, either did not  answer the question or gave incomplete answers.

Another 13 per  cent gave answers whose  sum does  not equal the reported total

output.  Three  examples will be  cited to support  questioning of the validity of

answers for the remaining 25 per cent.

       The City Water Board  of San Antonio, Texas, was among the 25 per cent

reporting consistent answers.  I was employed there at the time of the inventory.

We were justifiably proud of the records kept by  the Water Board.  But those

records were not kept in such manner as to  yield an answer to the question of

four-part breakdown	somebody guessed at  it.

       Another city reported total output  of 10 mgd, divided 3-3-3-1; a break-

down of beautiful symmetry but doubtful validity.

       Iri sharp cbntrdst to  the  reports from other states, in Wisconsin every

city but tine gives a consistent breakdown.  This means either that Wisconsin

operators are far ahead of their neighbors in detailed accounting for water, or

else the state data were arbitrarily adjusted for consistency in a central office.

       Notwithstanding what has been said, further study of the breakdown and

pattern of water use is worthwhile.  I believe it will be profitable to pursue

local studies of an intensive nature, as a complement to the extensive coverage

of nationwide inventories.

                        FACTORS AFFECTING WATER DEMAND

       In the language of the mathematician, water demand will be treated as

the dependent variable.  Independent variables or parameters, upon which it

depends, may be listed as follows:

       1.  Population.

       2.  Time (trend).

       3.  General state of the economy.

       4.  Living standards of families.

       5.  Climate.

       6.  Size of city.

       7.  Price of water.

       8.  Type and size of industry.

       9.  Accuracy of measurement.

       Ideally, the scientific approach to investigation would be to allow each

parameter to vary in turn, while holding all others fixed, and to measure the

observed effect.  Unfortunately, it is not possible to isolate any single variable

completely from the others	nor is it possible to use another technique common

in model studies and group them into dimensionless combinations, thereby reducing

the number of independent variables.

       An effort has been made to find examples for which one parameter was of

predominant influence—either because the others did not vary or because the

observed effect occurred in spite of counter-influence of other parameters.  As

each parameter is discussed, the examples will be presented.

                                1.  Population

       Because population is the most important  single factor affecting municipal

use, it is customary  to express the ratio  in  gallons per capita day  (gpcd).

Except as qualified,  other variables will  be  examined as to their influence on

per capita use.

                                   2.  Time

       Figure 1 shows the trend of municipal water use at Austin, San Antonio,

and Oklahoma City.  Gallons per day per service  connection, rather than per

capita, were plotted  because records are available directly in that  form for

two of the cities.  For Oklahoma City, pumpage data, but not the number of

service connections,  are available for each year.  Because of necessary adjust-

ment to permit plotting on a comparable basis, the Oklahoma City curve should

not be considered definitive except as an  indication of general trend.  Our

primary concern here  is the general shape  of  the trend curves.  The  U-shape

which is characteristic of all three records leaves wide latitude for opinion

as to what the future trend will be.  For  extrapolation 50 years into the future,

it is desirable, on one hand, to consider  the longest available period of past

record.  Examination will show that a line drawn approximately through the

earliest and most recent points would incline downward into the future.

       On the other hand, a sharp upward trend is evidenced in the'last 25 years.

The slope of this 25-year trend translates into  an avevage-.iincrease  in per

capita demand ofi«one  to-one^and-a->half gallohs per day per year-.  Apparently,

this is thei -evidence -upon which-Imany forecasters have predicted future

acceleration rates of such magnitude.


       A third possibility exists, which is not shown on Figure 1.  Records of

the Last four or five years exhibit a level trend.

       Somewhere among the possible extremes lies the most probable answer.  In

my own opinion, it is unreasonable to expect the acceleration rate of the past

25 years to continue unabated for fifty more years.  But I must disagree with

those who would ignore it entirely.

       In reaching a decision, it would be most helpful to know the causes of

the shape of the trend curves.  Here the impossibility of isolating the variables

becomes apparent.

       Conjecturally, the downward trend of the early years reflects increase

in metering.  Unquestionably, metering has a significant effect on water usage.

When it is not metered there is little incentive to call a plumber to repair

leaks—and a leak can easily waste far more water than is beneficially used.

       Possibly the low point in the mid-thirties and high point of the mid-

fifties reflect the influence of our third variable, the general level of

economic activity.  In pursuit of this idea, the graph of gross national product

was also plotted on Figure 1.  The low point of the curve corresponds to the

middle of the Great Depression, and time may show the high point to coincide

with the peak of a boom period.  However, the hypothesis doesn't stand up too

well under closer examination, especially in the period from 1920 to 1935.

                       4.  Living Standards of Families

       Table 1 and Figure 2 show the result of a part of an intensive study of

water use patterns in San Antonio, Texas.  An unusual opportunity to isolate

one variable from the others is made possible by the fact that, since 1957, the

San Antonio Water Board has kept separate records of consumption in each Census

Tract.  The city was divided at the time of the 1950 census into approximately

100 of these tracts.

       Ten Census Tracts were selected for investigation.  These tracts were

chosen because:  (1) each tract is predominantly single-family residential,

with a minimum of commerce and no industry; (2) the ten tracts cover the range

from luxury to sub-standard class of neighborhood; and (3) each is homogeneous

with respect to its economic class.

       1960 populations given in Table 1 are the preliminary United States census

values, obtained through the courtesy of the San Antonio Chamber of Commerce.

Populations for other years were obtained by interpolation, using number of

service connections as a guide.  Water consumption data are from the records of

the City Water Board.  Property values were obtained from records of the Bexar

County Tax Assessor-Collector.  Assessed valuation was first determined by

averaging approximately fifty random samples for each tract.  The average assessed

value was then divided by 28 per cent, on the advice of tax office personnel,  to

convert to actual market value.

                Table 1
Residential Per Capita Water Consumption
           San Antonio, Texas
A- 2
$ 3,000
Average Water Consumption, gpcd


       I would have preferred using per capita income instead of property value

as a measure of the standard of living in each Census Tract	but the figures

are not yet obtainable from the Census Bureau.  Nevertheless, the high degree

of correlation between standard of living and per capita water use, and the

tremendous influence of standard of living, are clearly apparent in Figure 2.

       Annual rainfall was above normal in all four of the years of record.

       The price of water was about 30 per cent higher in the two tracts, E-l

and E-2*, than in the others.  This is because they are separately incorporated

satellite cities and are charged  the outside-city-limits rate of the San

Antonio waterworks.  It appears that, for this luxury class, the premium price

of water didn't noticeably affect its use.

                                 5.  Climate

       Several investigations of the relationship of per capita use to rainfall

have been made in the Region VII office.  The results can be summarized by saying

that, when annual rainfall is more than about 45 inches, no discernible effect

is caused by further increase in amount.  Below 45 inches per year, there is a
                                                                f.O-30 9Cf>4 tH]l*r
noticeable effect, per capita demand at 15 inches of rain averaging about Wtt

times the demand at 45 inches.

       One illustration of observed effect of rainfall will be presented in the

discussion of the next parameter, size of city.
  Census Tract designations used herein are not the actual tract numbers.


       Before leaving the subject of climate, it is appropriate to suggest that

more consideration should be given to drouth frequency analysis in the study of

both supply and demand.  Since the purpose of storage impoundment is to assure

the supply of water during drouth periods, it is logical to estimate what the

demand will be under the design drouth condition that is used in' reservoir yield


       The governor of Texas said recently that the drouth of the middle fifties

was the worst in 600 years.  Without questioning the accuracy of estimate of

that recurrence interval, it can be questioned whether our "prudent user" would

be willing to pay the cost of avoiding some curtailment in water usage once

every 600 years.  Statements of dependable yield from a reservoir should be

accompanied by a statement of the drouth frequency, or recurrence interval,

used in the analysis.*

                                6.  Size of City

       Figure 3 was plotted from data'-collected for a 46-county regional- study

being made for the Trinity River Watershed and adjoining areas.  Each point

represents the average' per capita use of all community water systems (for which

records are available) -in a county.  Included in the group are Harris County

(Houston), Dallas County, and Tarrant County (Fort Worth).
*  Although low-flow augmentation is outside the scope of this paper, the
   same viewpoint applies.

       The fortuitous occurrence of an abnormally wet year immediately follow-

ing a record drouth year (1956) offers a good opportunity to see the effect of

rainfall extremes.  It will be seen that per capita demand in 1956 averaged

about 20 per cent higher than in 1957.

       The astonishing thing about the data plotted on Figure 3 is the indica-

tion of limited effect of size on per capita demand, even though sizes range

from a thousand to a million people.  Statistical regression lines for each

year, and their equations, calculated by least squares, are shown on the graph.

They were calculated because we didn1t believe our eyes, and they are not

recommended for general use.  I am not ready to say that this evidence shows

that per capita use does not increase with size of city---but I am no longer

willing to accept such an assumption without doubts.  Perhaps the country town

is disappearing, along with the country girl.

                              7.  Price of Water

       In considering the effect of price on water demand, three basic facts

should be kept in mind.  These are:  (1) it is delivered price, not cost of

source development, that is significant; (2) for legal, political, and social

reasons, the role of price has been greatly restrained; and (3) it is incorrect

to generalize that the unit price of water will go up everywhere.

       The cost of source development is usually a small part of delivered

price of water.  In an increasing number of cities the water bill includes a

sewer service charge,  which may or may not be separately itemized.  (In Dallas

it is not.)  Some cities subsidize the cost of water service from general

tax funds;  others use  water sales as a source of municipal revenue for other



       Legal aspects can be illustrated by the following example.  One might

ask why the holder of a water right on the Texas coast persists in using the

water to grow rice when the dollar return would be much higher if it were used

in industrial production.  The answer is that he possesses only the right to

use the water for a specified purpose, irrigation, and not the authority to

sell it.  Society as a whole might gain from reallocation of scarce water to

higher-yield usage	but the incumbent water-right holder stands to lose what

he has and gain nothing.  The pressing question is, "Whose water is it?".

Waiver of claim by the federal government still leaves the gamut of claimants,

from private citizen, to city, to county, to water district or river authority,

to state.

       The costs of impoundment, treatment, and transmission of water respond

dramatically to the effect of mass production.  Many a small town is experienc-

ing critical problems of high-cost water precisely because the demand is small.

       I shall resist the temptation to elaborate further on a pet subject, and

simply say that price is expected to play a role of increasing importance in

the future.

       It is difficult to find evidence of significant effect of price on water

usage in Region VII.  Apparently this is because the  cost of water is a small

part of either the cost of living to families or the cost of production in

industries.  Only one example has been found for which a comparison  can be

made---the cities of Abilene and Brownwood, Texas.  Investigation of the records

disclosed the following facts:


               1.  The cities are Located about 80 miles apart.

               2.  Abilene is three times as big as Brownwood.

               3.  Abilene is growing rapidly, while Brownwood lost

                   population in the last 10 years.

               4.  Rainfall at Abilene averages slightly less than

                   at Brownwood.

               5.  Per capita income is higher at Abilene.

               6.  Neither city is highly industrialized.

               7.  Contrary to expectations, per capita water use

                   for several years past has been consistently

                   higher at Brownwood than at Abilene--about

                   one-and-a-half times as much.

               8.  The water bill for a typical family, using ten

                   to fifteen thousand gallons a month, would be

                   almost twice as high in Abilene.  It appears,

                   therefore, that price is exerting an influence

                   here which counteracts all other factors.

                        8.  Type and Size of Industry

       Except for possibly half a dozen industrial categories in which large

quantities of water are used, I believe that industrial water can be included

with all other uses in a single per capita figure	at least for large

metropolitan centers.  Care should be exercised in the investigation, prepara-

tory to making a projection, to insure that the water usage from all sources is

included in the total present use.  The total may then be separated, or  not,


as judgment dictates, into municipal and industrial parts.  The decision—for

reasons previously stated	should not be based solely on whether particular

water users are currently buying water from the municipal system.

       Where the special large-water-using industries exist, their water

demands are apt to be quite large, sometimes far overshadowing the municipal


                         9.  Accuracy of Measurement

       This is not, of course, a proper variable upon which it could be said

that water use depends.  It is included here because of personal conviction

that inaccuracies in measuring, compiling, and publishing data constitute a

major reason for difference in the reported use of water.

       It is by no means obvious, to the management in many operating water

companies, that it is necessary to account precisely for the total quantity of

product delivered.  A large part of the cost of rendering water service is made

up of fixed capital and operating expenses, not directly related to the amount

of water delivered.  The front office is primarily interested in revenue, and

many of our largest water utilities rely, like the telephone company, on a

system of flat-rate monthly charges as the major source of this revenue.

       The design engineer is concerned with ability of the system to meet peak

rate demands.  The pump station operator governs his plant output by the pulse

of the distribution system as evidenced by strategic pressures or the height

of water in elevated tanks.


       It is apparent, then, that none of these people are vitally interested

in the annual output of water.  Only for long-range planning of source develop-

ments is this information indispensable.

       The second major reason for inaccuracy is the difficulty of measuring the

quantity of water dispatched from a pumping station.  Since it flows continuously

but unsteadily, it cannot be counted by discrete units, as can sacks of potatoes

or carloads of coal.

       Typical meters measure rate of flow indirectly by its relationship to

some measurable pressure difference; the instantaneous rate is translated and

integrated mechanically into total quantity.  To be sure, these meters can be

and are built to a high degree of precision—but maintenance by highly trained

specialists is required for continued accuracy.  Furthermore, they are expensive,

and many small water systems do no have them.

       Improvement in the completeness and accuracy of data may be expected to

result from education in the importance of water accounting.  The operator needs

the motivation of knowing why he is doing the job, and training to teach him

how to do it.

       The growing use of the techniques of mathematical statistics, facilitated

by electronic computers, can greatly improve our understanding of the signifi-

cance of masses of data.  It is well to bear in mind, however, that no amount

of statistical manipulation can compensate for gross inaccuracies in raw data--

and that the electronic computing machine reproduces flawlessly any mistakes fed

into it.


                              PROJECTION METHODS

       Future water demand may be obtained by:  (1) direct projection of annual

quantity of water, from the amount used in a base year; (2) projection of popu-

lation and an all-inclusive per capita use factor which, multiplied by this

population, gives total water demand; or (3) projection of population as before

and selection of appropriate multipliers to give separate components of water

use.  Each method has advantages, and each has been used, at one time or another,

in the reports prepared by the Region VII staff.

       The first method is the simplest, the most direct	and probably the most

vulnerable to criticism.  Implicit in its use is the assumption that population

and water-using activity will grow apace with the projected water demand.  There

should be, but isn't always, the additional implied assumption of the presence

of the other factors which, in turn, cause population to grow.  The water depart-

ment of one of our major cities has the catchy slogan: "Podunk grows where water

goes".  Critics like myself would quibble that the slogan is worded backward;

they mean: "Water goes where Podunk grows".

       In my opinion, the second method is the preferred one of the group unless

there is good reason to depart from it.  The investigator would examine all of

the evidence, weigh the evidence with reg.ard to the parameters discussed in the

preceding section, and render an opinion.  That is, he would select for the

target projection year a single per-capita number embodying municipal-and-

industrial water, and multiply by the projected population.  I would say that

this method can be applied to large metropolitan centers in which there is not

disproportionate activity of one of the special, large-water-using industries.


       The third method is, or should be, a modification of the second.  I

would split off, for separate projection, whatever is special, unusual, or

atypical at the particular place.  All the rest of the water demands could

still be incorporated into a per capita figure and called municipal.  The

projection technique for the special component would depend on its nature.

For some industrial categories, the preferred approach might be to project

total production and multiply by water use per unit of product.  For others,

the multiplier might be water use per employee.  A third possibility is to

make a direct assumption of percentage increase in quantity of water from

analysis of the potential for growth in that industry as determined by the

resources available to support it.

       In selecting factors for projecting industrial use, every effort should

be made to obtain local data.  Unit water use within many industrial categories

is so highly variable as to render virtually useless the national or regional

average figures.  The chemical industries present an especially knotty problem.

We can do little more than guess at what the products of chemistry will be

fifty years hence.  (Incidentally, this writer deplores the inordinate fear of

using that word, "guess";  the substitution of euphemisms seldom fools anyone.)

       In contrast to industrial demand, it is confidently expected that

municipal (population-oriented) water requirements will vary within rather

narrow limits.  I believe the time is approaching when we will be able to draw

iso-per-capita lines on a map of Region VII and to use them for estimating


municipal demand.  This will require, first, rejection of incorrect data in

the past record, and then adjustment for the influence of rainfall and standard

of living.

       We do not yet have firmly adopted numbers for placing on such a map.  I

am convinced that they will be substantially higher than those given by the

Public Health Service to the Senate Select Committee	particularly the figures

of 114 and 106 gpcd for the Western Gulf (year 2000) published in Table 5 of

Committee Print No. 7.  I suggest, for the year 2010, a range from about 140

gpcd in the humid, to about 230 gpcd in the semi-arid, parts of Region VII.

(We have not made detailed studies in the arid part, New Mexico and extreme

West Texas.)

       Finally, if it is concluded that the best we can do is define a range

of values within which the answer lies, then the numbers should truly reflect

a range.  To speak of a "medium" value of 114 gpcd and a "high" of 106, is both

contradictory in terminology and ridiculously narrow in latitude.  If "that's

the way the ball bounces" as the result of a whole series of judgment decisions

made in arriving at answers, then the ball should be bounced again.


       Despite perplexing questions as to whose water it is, water is a natural

resource which can be considered to respond to the same economic laws that

govern other commodities.

       Objective water resource planning can be substantially bereft of funereal

aspects, and approached with confidence and optimism.  We are not about to run

out of drinking water in Region VII.

       For the purpose of estimating future demands, water use should be sub-

divided into as many components as will improve the accuracy of the sum of its

parts -- and no more.

       Certain methods of subdivision have been suggested, along with suggested

methods of approach to the problem in different circumstances.

       Examples have been cited to illustrate the influence, or the absence

of influence, of parameters commonly considered to have significant effect on

water demands.

       Estimates of future water requirements should take into account both

general trend and cyclical variation.  A drouth frequency should be adopted as

one of the basic premises of planning studies, and both supply and demand

should be estimated for the climatic conditions of the design drouth.

       Average per capita use of water will continue to rise as an increasing

percentage of the population moves up to higher standards of living.


Suggested values for Region VII are 140 to 230 gpcd in the year 2010 - the range

reflecting primarily the influence of rainfall under design drouth conditions.

Adjustments should be made, as local investigation indicates, for the effects of

such parameters as:  availability and price of water; types of industry; and,

perhaps, size of city.

       The Public Health Service should review its position as established by

the report to the Senate Select Committee, and make some upward revisions	

particularly of the figures in Tables 5 and 7 (Committee Print No. 7) for the

Western Gulf and Ark-White-Red water resource regions.  Our position is

weakened when we cannot cite our own publications in support of conclusions.

—   5001—
                   PER CAPITA
1930        1940

                                     SAN ANTONIO
                                 OKLAHOMA CITY

   (/)  250




              T   <



                     5000         10000         15000        20000

                    AVERAGE VALUE OF PROPERTY IN I960

V YEAR 1957

Q YEAR 1958

A YEAR 1959

                                                                    KIGUUE  2



o YEAR 1956
• YEAR 1957

• o












0 8




1 *







•aa**1 "

^. •—










100 1,000 10,000 100,000 i.ooopoo






                            Earnest F= Gloyna
              Professor of Environmental Health Engineering
                         The University of Texas
                              Austin, Texas

     Water treatment begins at the point of use, and the final treat-
ment is provided at the point of discharge.  Design criteria can "become
too stereotyped, resulting in more costly treatment practices.  The
waste stabilization pond is probably the most economical system of
waste treatment for many of the smaller communities.   However, as with
all present-day treatment operations, much research and development is
still needed.
     Water is one of the necessities of life.  Furthermore, it is one of

the major resources in the United States.  The distribution and use of

water is controllable to some extent, but the reuse of water is depend-

ent upon the resourcefulness of the present generation.  The pollution of

large amounts of water with smaller amounts of contaminants is an econ-

omic luxury which this nation cannot afford.  It is recognized by most

responsible people that the use of water is a privilege and that treat-

ment of used water is a necessity.  The degree of treatment may vary

from place to place, but the cost of treatment represents a fee for using

the water.

     Merciless man must not turn the streams into poison for other users.

Man must pay, but it need not be expensive-
 A paper to be presented to the U- S- Public Health Service Conference on
Water Resources, Region VII, Dallas, Texas, May 15-1?,

     If the majority of our future water  supply is to be a mixture of

pristine and adulterated waters, then water treatment must logically be-

gin at the point of pollution and not at  the water intake of some down-

stream user.  This paper describes some of the reasons why domestic

waste treatment need not necessarily be expensive.  The ultimate object-

ives remain the same with regard to water treatment and use, i.e., it

is not only desirable but necessary to destroy the pathogenic micro-

organisms and, in some manner, reduce the putrescible organic matter to

carbon dioxide or otherwise inoffensive substances.  The scientific aspects

of the algal-bacterial commensalism (eating at the same table) system will

be considered herein, but the emphasis will be placed on the development

of the "art" of waste-water treatment by  the use of waste stabilization


Engineering Apathy

     Water quality control is an engineering problem but with roots in al-

most all the social and scientific disciplines.  Engineers, as a profess-

ional group, pride themselves in being able to utilize these various dis-

ciplines to obtain one or more plausible  solutions to an engineering pro-

blem.   Once having developed possible answers, the professional engineer

makes his decision on the basis of an economic evaluation.   It is at this

point in a water development study when an engineer searches his mind

and conscience for all the knowledgeable  facts.  The figures are bared,

and an honest appraisal is made.   It is a rare case indeed when the

engineer reaches a major decision on purely materialistic considerations.

     Even as individuals,  professional groups sometimes become engrossed

in what are all too frequently described as technicalities.  This is clearly

demonstrated in the area of water and waste treatment-  To this extent the

American engineer has expended much effort on the use of power and ex-

tended the application of mechanical appurtenances, particularly in the

field of water treatment.  He has strived to perfect larger and more soph-

isticated systems.  This, in itself, is not "bad "because the creation of

things satisfies the innermost desires of most builders, and the engineer

surely is a maker of things.  For some engineers, dedicated to the field

of water resources, there is the age-old desire and challenge to control

the movement of water, to build large impoundments, and to construct

impressive treatment facilities.  All of these systems obviously are to

be built on a river that has water of the highest purity and no histori-

cal connection with domestic or industrial use-   Even if water has been

used as a transporting medium for industrial and municipal wastes, it is

still a challenge to design complicated systems satisfying the latest in

experimental equipment.  The temptation is great to erect mammoth air-

compressor and air-dispersal systems which provide air in ever smaller

bubbles, and to build biological treatment systems that are continually

helping to reduce the mean flow through time.   Such devices are economic

necessities in some places but not in the majority of cases.

     It is of considerable significance that through the centuries the

definition of water purity has become more sophisticated.   As the standard

of living has increased, the criteria of parity have become more rigid

and possibly more quantitative.   In retrospect,  the engineer as an indiv-

idual may have become accustomed to recommending the "Park Avenue" variety

of hardware and, in  some  ill-advised  situations, completely ignoring the

dictum that all plausible solutions to the water treatment problem must

be considered before  submitting a  recommendation.  A case in point is the

small-town sewage treatment plant.  In most cases the engineer knows full

well that the operational control  required of this "Park Avenue" treatment

plant will not be forthcoming.  As a matter of fact, in the past it has

been difficult to obtain  appropriate operating experience for the plants

servicing the larger  cities.

     Has it been complete disregard for economic principles which has led

the engineer to choose the sophisticated designs?  The answer to this

question is, "Probably not."

Historical Objectives

     It has been customary for engineers to be content with developing

more economical unit  processes including primary sedimentation followed

by aerobic biological treatment and the anaerobic digestion processes to

stabilize the unoxidized  solids.

     The conventional treatment systems, for obvious economic reasons,

have not been designed to  recover  significant amounts of nutrients in the

waste water, these nutrients being primarily phosphorus and nitrogen com-

pounds.   The total nutrients in the near future may actually exceed ten

million tons annually, and the next generation of engineers may very well

be concerned with the problem of total nutrient recovery.

     The historical treatment plant, for not always obvious reasons,  has

been designed to provide oxygen by mechanical means.   The oxygen is uti-

lized by bacterial masses  in synthesizing more cells or oxidizing the

organic matter for energy-conversion purposes.  The mineralized effluent

from such processes represents a considerable amount of fertilizer in the

form of inorganic solids.

     Unfortunately, it is at this stage in the historical treatment proc-

esses that the conventional system begins to break down.  The putrescible

material has been reduced to simple organic products, compounds of nitro-

gen, phosphorus, etc.  It is not desirable to have this fertilizer in the

water because in the presence of sunlight these nutrients will support a

crop of microscopic plants.  Yet this is exactly what happens.  The low-

energy materials which have been added to a stream as a result of domestic

and industrial wastes are converted to high-energy forms through the proc-

ess of photosynthesis.  The aquatic flora in itself is not so seriously

objectionable, but, in terms of hydraulic terminology, steady state con-

ditions of growth are difficult to maintain.   Sunlight, temperature, food,

pH, and numerous other factors influence the harvest.  The stream, after

receiving the expensive and highly treated effluent, is subjected to a

cyclic form of crop rotation.   This is likely to be a particularly diffi-

cult problem in the future.

     The tremendous fluctuations in algal blooms have not been experienced

in all sections of the country because the deposits in stream beds have

been periodically flushed out to the ocean, but, as the streams are more

rigorously controlled by the construction of impoundments, this periodic

flushing will not take place as often.   This mode of water-resource control

will tend to place new pressures on the engineer to examine the manner in

which water and waste-water is usually treated.

     A reservoir which receives a continuous steady supply of nutrients

from an upstream source can eliminate these nutrients either through dis-

charge via downstream releases or through the transfer of these nutrients

to higher forms of life such as fish.  If the fish are then removed, this

represents a net loss to the lake.  However, it must be pointed out that

the base level of nutrients in a reservoir at any time in the future,

regardless of whether the reservoir has been nearly emptied and then re-

filled with dilution water, will be greater than the initial base level.

Also, the higher trophic levels, as represented by fish, are not considered

to be primary consumers of nutrient as are the bacterial and algal systems.

The Ultimate in Waste Treatment

     The most efficient use of the carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus in

conjunction with sunlight would be to convert these materials into usable

food stuff or to put the water and nutrient on irrigable land.   This

approach is not new since it has been considered in Germany and in several

investigations in this country.  The scheme simply indicates that putres-

cible organic material and other materials, theoretically at least, can

be transformed into a high-energy protein substance.  By using algal-

bacterial processes, it is possible to produce an amount of protein from

one acre of domestic waste-water stabilization ponds equivalent to as much

as fifty acres of irrigated cropland.  The algae provide the oxygen for

aerobic bacterial synthesis and oxidation.  To complete the cycle, the

algae utilize the carbon dioxide released by bacteria and obtain other

trace nutrients to propagate their own species.   The difficulty in this

approach is the fact that the algal cells are very small, and they are

difficult to remove from the liquid  substrate.

     Therefore, until it is possible to  remove the algae and nutrient or

the nutrient alone, the waste-water  might as well be treated as economic-

ally as possible.  Nutrient releases under present conditions will be about

the same, and algae in the effluent  from a waste-water treatment plant

merely moves the algal system upstream a few miles.

Waste Stabilization Fonda

     Sewage oxidation ponds are not  new.  Sewage lagoons and oxidation

ponds have been used in Texas for at least ^0 years.  Prior to this time

the Germans and the Chinese used a form  of waste stabilization ponds or

sewage lagoons for treating waste and raising fish.  Waste stabilization

ponds is a term, for lack of a better definition, which describes a more

recent engineering development of the earlier sewage lagoons-

     Today most nations, and states  in the United States utilize waste

stabilization ponds as a means of treating domestic effluents.   It is esti-

mated that there are over 2,000 acres of pond surface in Texas and over

^00 cells.   Most of these are a secondary form of treatment.   However, it

has been reported that there are now more than 300 communities in the

Missouri Basin which use stabilization ponds as the sole mode of treatment.

Waste stabilization ponds comprise over  10 per cent of the secondary type

sewage treatment plants in the U-  S.  and compare very favorably with

trickling filters and ac^ivated sludge treatment methods.   As shown in

Table 1, the conventional biological systems on an economic basis cannot

compare favorably with waste stabilization ponds when the population

contributing to the treatment plant  is relatively small.   Even when a

population concentration of 100,000  exists, the per capita costs are still

much cheaper  for the consumption of  stabilization ponds.

      Table 1.  Per Capita Cost of Construction in 1913 Dollars for

                      Treatment Plants in U. S. (a)
Trickling •' ( c )
Trickling (b)
(a)  Data only relates contract cost, or about 80$ of total first cost.

(b)  U. S. Total.

(c)  Without separate sludge digestion.

     The operation and maintenance costs of a waste stabilization pond

are so much lower than those which would be required for the trickling

filter and activated sludge treatment systems that there is no justi-

fiable comparison.  Table 2 shows the estimated annual operation and

maintenance cost for about 300 treatment plants.

     The annual operation and maintenance costs for the primary plants

are roughly equal to the trickling filter.   These costs are roughly $1.^0

per capita per year.

     If it is assumed that the excess activated sludge stabilization pond

in Austin, Texas can be prepared on an equal basis, the operation and

maintenance costs are 25 cents per capita per year.  At present the ponds

are receiving the BOD from equivalent population of 50,000 people-

        Table 2.  Estimated Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost
Expected Annual Cost ($/cap. )
Standard Rate
Trickling Filter

High Rate
Trickling Filter

Furthermore, it should be recalled that these stabilization ponds could

very readily handle twice the present load.  The estimated annual operation

and maintenance costs for the activated sludge and trickling filter plants

is at least 5 to 6 times the cost of keeping a pond system.  It also

should be pointed out that a great deal of dilution water must be pumped

from the river and mixed with the excess activated sludge at the Austin

plant.  This is considered part of the operational costs in this partic-

ular plant and*would not be a major factor in the normal waste stabili-

zation pond system.

Sludge Stabilization Ponds

     In 195^ the City of Austin, Texas, found itself in a typical sewage

treatment predicament.  The inadequate conventional activated sludge

treatment plant was converted and expanded to the Biosorption process at

a cost of $390,000.00-  The plant provided continuous good results for the

first time, but while the new process solved the operational problem for

maintaining a satisfactory BOD in the effluent and the immediate loading

of the main plant, it did not solve the excess sludge disposal problem.

It was estimated that the capital cost of the digesters of adequate size

for the 195^- load would be $750,000-  The importance of this figure was

that it did not include the cost of additional drying beds or a vacuum

filter plant installation, nor provisions for future increases in load.

Assuming there is a market in Austin for filtered and heat-dried sludge

as fertilizer, which there probably isn't, there would still be a net

loss of $8-00 to $15-00 per ton of sludge processed.  The City of Houston

reportedly sells their sludge for an average of $13-00 per ton but it costs

them $21.00 per ton to vacuum filter it and process it for sale.

     The decision was made at Austin to try the ponding system used by

San Antonio for handling the excess solids-   At San Antonio, Mitchell Lake

with a surface area of about 700 acres has been receiving some digester

supernatant, primary treated sewage and excess activated sludge for a long

time.   After considerable study, a 270-acre tract of land was purchased

as a site for the sludge oxidation lake system.   It is about two miles

from the treatment plant and adjoins the Colorado River.

     To date, three lake systems have been designed, constructed and put

into operation.   The capacities are 4l, 65,  and 85 acres.

     The capital and operating costs are as follows:

         Land	$120,000.00

         Construction (complete)	^55,OOP.00

         Total Capital Cosss	$575,000-00

         Operational Costs	$ 12,500.00/yr.

It is estimated that the operating costs during 1958 when the ponds were

not even loaded to capacity was $4-80 per ton on a dry weight basis.

This represents a substantial saving as compared to other types of treat-
ment-  Also, at this time there appears to "be a fair market for the bait
and larger forage fish which appear to thrive in the lakes.
     There have been no serious problems in the operation.  Embankments
were graveled to prevent erosion, and a gasoline driven paddle wheel was
mounted on a raft to disperse floating algal masses which sometimes accu-
mulate in a corner as a result of wind action.
     The following is an abstract of the I960 Annual Report of the Sewage
Treatment Plant, Austin, Texas, describing the ponds:
     5- day BOD Total Pounds                           3,8l8,505
     Pounds per acre per day, Average                        55
     Pounds per acre per day, Maximum                       165
     Pounds per acre per day, Minimum                         0
     Suspended Solids, Total Pounds
     Pounds per acre per day, Average                        j6
     Total Plow into Lakes (M- G« )
          1.   Excess Activated Sludge                       100-7
          2.   Digester Overflow                               k. 9
          3-   River Water                                 ^83.7
     Total Plow Out (M-G- ) Estimated                      2,877.3
          5 -Day BOD in Effluent (ppm) Average                17-2
          5-Day BOD in Effluent (ppm) Maximum                ^2-0
          5-Day BOD in Effluent (ppm) Minimum                 1.2
     It should be noted that the first lake (^1 acres) received an average
loading of 200 pounds of BOD per acre per day which represented 90$ or
more of the excess sludge production in 1958.   This loading might cause
some concern, but, by the addition of the new 85-acre and 65-acre lakes,
there is sufficient lake capacity to dispose of twice the present sludge


A Ransom for Nutrients

     One of the biggest problems in water quality control is that of exces-

sive nutrients in the water.  Domestic wastes add a considerable amount

of phosphorus and nitrogen to the water.  As a matter of fact, domestic

sewage is a rich source of the nutrients generally required by phyto-

plankton.  However, it is noteworthy to mention that domestic sewage does

not really provide a balanced diet for microorganisms.   There is an over-

abundance of phosphorus as compared to both carbon and nitrogen.  The or-

ganic carbon is usually limited in the case of activated sludge.  Generally,

carbon is not limiting in the case of algae because adequate amounts of

carbon are normally available in the form of alkalinity.

     As a matter of interest, normal phosphorus removal in a sewage treat-

ment plant ranges from 2% for primary treatment to an average of 23$ for

the plants employing biological treatment.

     The possibility of removing nutrients, particularly phosphorus, by

select species of algae is also realistic.   The work of Bogan and others

have shown that it is possible to remove nearly all the phosphates very

rapidly by algal cultures.    It was shown in this work that the phosphate

concentration could be reduced from 20 or more mg/1 to less than 5'mg/l

in less than four hours.   The algae were responsible in absorbing or

aiding the coagulation of the phosphates where removal of large amounts

of phosphates were involved-  However, common metabolic conversion is the

principal mechanism of removal when a typical waste stabilization pond is


     The algae in phosphorus removal operations serve two purposes.  In

one case, an abundance of cell production will naturally accumulate a

greater amount of phosphorus.  In the second case, the phosphate removal

is dependent upon a high pH, and, if adequate lighting is available for

an abundance of algal production, the pH is increased.  This latter re-

quirement creates somewhat of a paradox in actual waste stabilization

pond operation because the light intensity in the deeper pond is not

generally adequate for the production of maximum numbers of cells nor maxi-

mum pH maintenance-   When the day comes that algae might be utilized for

both waste treatment and phosphate recovery, a totally different design

will be needed.  This day may not be in the too far distant future.  At

the present, a choice must be made whether to remove the phosphorus by

maximum algal production or to maintain only a sufficient algal popula-

tion to provide adequate amounts of oxygen for the bacterial population.

Fish are a less efficient means of nutrient removal but possibly adequate

to serve the present needs.   A source of revenue might also be found in

fish for cat food, feed supplement, etc.

Simplicity of Design

     Waste stabilization ponds are economical because ponds may be designed

to provide treatment of any wastes that can be oxidized biologically.   The

engineer must always remember, however, that the water to be treated has

been contaminated and will be esthetically unacceptable to the general


     It is desirable that some form of pre-treatment of the waste be the

rule rather than the exception.   Screening, in general, and preferably

grinding  should be provided  for domestic waste to remove unsightly float-

ing material.  This type of  pre-treatment is also necessary for most indus-

trial wastes.

     Sufficient acreage should be obtained to prevent encroachment by

residential  subdivisions.  If isolation cannot be obtained, additional

volume should be added to the ponds,  .'or sedimentation as a pre-treatment

should be provided.

     Ponds with sufficient storage usually exhibit an exceptionally high

degree of coliform removal.  In this  respect, waste stabilization ponds

may be used  for providing a  higher degree of treatment in combination with

other types  of treatment-

     The principal factors affecting  the design of stabilization ponds

are light, temperature, waste characteristics, degree of isolation, and

topographical features.  If  BOD reduction is the primary objective, it is

not necessary to have maximum penetration of light.   It is possible for

anaerobic decomposition to take place in certain sections of the pond,

namely at deeper levels, but this has no adverse effect on the overall

performance  as long as aerobic conditions prevail over the surface.  In

most cases,  the oxidation reduction potential at the depths where there

is no apparent dissolved oxygen will indicate an aerobic-type environment

rather than  a true anaerobic system.   Temperature appears to be of consider-

able importance^   Since the  rate of biochemical oxidation is largely a

function of  the bacterial activity, pond requirements must be based on

winter loading rates.   However,  excessively high temperatures during the

summer may either produce an odor problem or an overproduction of algae.

There have been cases where the water temperatures have increased in very

shallow ponds to the point where the algal p.opulation was severely restricted

and anaerobic bacterial systems created a considerable odor problem*  This

situation can be remedied generally by maintaining a somewhat deeper pond

level, five feet or more-  This increase in depth during the summer repre-

sents a basic change in pond philosophy.  This will permit higher summer

loading rates and the pond temperature will be roughly the same as the

mean annual temperature.  Since surface aeration alone will probably not

provide more than twelve to sixteen pounds of oxygen per acre per day, the

algae must provide the remaining oxygen-

     If color in the effluent is a problem, series operation is a necessity.

A lower algae concentration and generally higher quality effluent will re-

sult from ponds constructed in series.  If the first pond is receiving

raw sewage, it should be larger than the remaining ponds or septic condi-

tions will prevail.   Although the shape of the ponds is.  usually determined

by topography, it is necessary to eliminate all stagnant corners.  All the

dikes should be well constructed.   The top of the dike should be wide

enough for automobile traffic.  Gravel placed on the inner slope has proven

to be very effective where wave action presents a problem.   Other more per-

manent forms of lining probably reduce maintenance but greatly increase

the cost of the installation.

     Multiple inlets and outlets in the first pond are highly desirable.

In this connection,  it is important to have the bottom of the pond cleared

of brush and other material before filling.

     Every precaution should be taken in the design to prevent the possible

"breeding of mosquitoes, collection of floating algal masses, stagnant

areas, and pollution of ground water through porous formations.  Bank

control will help eliminate the mosquito problem.  Agitation of stagnant

areas will prevent scum formation.  Finally, ttentonite is frequently help-

ful in sealing the bottom of the ponds.

The Economic Balance

     The measure commonly employed in totaling was tie-water treatment is

"BOD removal" from a municipal or an industrial source.  This is not an

ideal measure, since other yardsticks (color and nutrienti for example)

may still prevent the use of water for other downstream purposes-   In

water deficient areas, the color problem has not usually been considered

a serious threat to quality-  However, the immediate removal of readily

putrescible material and the destn^^ion of enteric organisms is of con-

siderable importance in all areas of the country.  Where there are a limited

number of dollars available, the climati" conditions are favorable, and

the geographical conditions permit, the engineer in all sincerity must

consider the possibility of designing and \isiag waste stabilization ponds.

Except where land costs are excessively high and where population densities

are much greater than are normally experienced in most sections of che

United States, waste stabilization ponds are r.he least, expensive of all

the presently knowa fonrs of domestic wast-e treat-meat.

     Tbere are many problems which the engineer faces in the treatment

of waste wafers.   As in all was^e-treatment systems, the waste stabiliza-

tion pond is not now nor should it be the ultimate answer for treating

municipal and industrial wastes.   At least twenty years of intensive

research and development is required to answer problems which arise in the



     1.  Waste stabilization ponds may be designed and operated economically

under a wide variety of conditions.

     2.  If necessary, a waste stabilization pond may be designed to accom-

plish all of the functions normally provided by partial and complete sewage

treatment plants.

     3-  In addition to a nominal amount of light, temperature is the most

important factor.  Excessively high temperatures and shallow depths can

produce nuisance problems as well as low temperature operations.

     k.  Although waste stabilization ponds are the least expensive means

of treating domestic waste today, the following research and development

suggestions and questions are submitted.

     a.  Field studies should be made to determine the effectiveness of

         mechanical aerators in the first of a series of stabilization

         ponds.  Certain efficient low-lift pumps and cavitators may help

         to develop an extremely active biological floe and thereby

         assist decomposition of the putrescible waste*

     b-  The effectiveness of fish farming as a means of nutrient removal

         should be more thoroughly investigated.

     c.  Additional algal and nutrient removal schemes should be investi-


     d.  Specific information is needed to determine the role of oxidation-

         reduction potentials in biologically active systems throughout

    the waste stabilization ponds.

e.  Considering various temperatures, what portion of the biochemical

    oxygen demand of an organic waste is satisfied by photosynthetic

    oxygenation?  What fractions of the BOD are satisfied by oxygen

    from chemical sources and from the atmosphere?

f.  What is the effect of temperature as the sole variable on waste

    stabilization ponds?

g.  Fundamental studies should yield considerable information regard-

    ing the cycling effect of algal cell production and variation in

    species that is so obvious but difficult to explain.

h.  It is desirable to know the relationships between the pond and

    ambient temperatures as they affect the growth characteristics

    of the algae.

i.  What is the effective storage capacity of the bottom sediments

    as regards nitrogen and phosphorus?

j.  Is there a health problem associated with the use of waste stabi-

    lization ponds for raising bait and forage fish?

k.  In the larger lakes, what health significance might be associated

    with the use of these ponds as a duck and other wild life refuge?


1-  Bogan, R. H., et   al.,  "Use  of Algae  in Removing Phosphorus From Sewage,"

   J. Sanitary  Engineering Division,  ASCE,  86,  No.  SA5,  1-20 (Sept.  I960).

2«  Hermann, E.  R., and Gloyna,  E-  F-,  "Waste Stabilization Ponds--Parts

   I, II, and III," J. Sewage and Industrial Wastes,  50, 511-538 (Apr.  1958).

3*  Heuvelen, W. V-, et al.,  "Waste Stabilization Lagoons," J.  Water Pollu-

   tion Control Federation,  32, 909-917  (Sept.  1Q60).

k*  Owen, R. , "Removal of Phosphorus From Sewage Plant Effluent with Lime,"

   J. Sewage and Industrial  Waste,  25, 5^8 (May 1953).

5-  Rowan, P. P., et al., "Sewage  Treatment Construction  Costs," J.  Water

   Pollution Control  Federation,  32,  59^-604 (June  I960).

6-  Rowan, P. P., "Estimating Sewage Treatment Plants Operation and Main-

   tenance  Costs," J. Water  Pollution Control Federation, 33;  111-121

   (February 1961).

7.  Ullrich, A.  H., Annual  Report,  Division of Sewage Treatment, City of

   Austin,  Texas (1958).





                            F. W. Kittrell
                        Public Health Engineer

                       Field Operations Section
                      Technical Services Branch

                           Public Health Service
                 Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center
                            Cincinnati 26, Ohio
       My first reaction to the question which is the subject of this dis-

cussion was that I could dispose of it in short order with a simple,

unequivocal "Yes."

       On second thought, however, faint doubts started to arise regarding

the adequacy of such a simple, straightforward answer.  When I considered

means of resolving those first faint doubts not only did they refuse to

vanish but they actually grew bigger and stronger and in turn produced a

brood of lusty offspring.  Finally I was faced with such an array of

clamoring doubts that I was driven to the reluctant conclusion that here

was a question that required strenuous mental effort.  After undergoing

the necessary, even though distasteful, mental effort I have come, with

mixed emotions, to the inevitable conclusion that here is a question that

I, alone, cannot answer.  The mixed emotions include both amazement and

relief.  The amazement derives from the realization that, despite some

thirty years in this business of stream sanitation, I cannot glibly answer
For presentation at Water Resources Conference, Dallas, Texas
May 2U-26, 1961

all the questions involved in arriving at a sound decision regarding the

need for maintaining water quality.  The relief steins from the realization

that I, alone, do not have to assume the awesome responsibility for the

ultimate decision.

       As a matter of fact, neither this group, as well informed and

competent as you are, nor the Public Health Service, with its weighty

responsibilities in the field, can make this decision.  It is a decision

which, under our form of government, the public must make.

       We cannot, however, lightly dismiss a-ii of our responsibilities

in this matter by shifting them to the broad shoulders of the public.

We must make up our own minds regarding what we believe about maintenance

of water quality and provide the public with an honest and sound basis

to assist him in reaching his decision.  Which brings us full cycle back

to our starting point of having to face up to a very complex and challeng-

ing question.  Although I am not, and I am quite sure you are not, vain

enough to believe that we can come up with complete and final answers here

and now, I do believe that we can make some useful progress toward the

answers we need.

       Those who designed this program made an already difficult problem

even more difficult by a ground rule with which they sought to anchor us

speakers to terra firma and to prevent us from soaring into orbit in the

stratosphere.  This ground rule states "Remember that you are talking to

professionals, not laymen, and minimize generalities and philosophy as

much as possible."  The qualification "minimize - as much as possible"

provides a loophole of which I propose to take, indeed I must take,

full advantage.  Otherwise, our problem would be insoluble.  I have a

sneaking, though unconfirmed, suspicion that the program designers

hopefully may have believed that all the subjects they propounded

might be dealt with exclusively by an engineering approach, supported

by incontestable facts and figures.  I submit that the subject

represented by the question "Must Water Quality Be Maintained?" can

be resolved only by venturing into the philosophical realms of emotions

and of morals, as well as into the more prosaic field of engineering.

Only a mnaii portion of the answers to this question will come from

manipulation of the slide rule.  The major portion of the answers

ultimately will come from the secret and poorly understood workings

of the mind of that aggregate man, the public, and will be influenced

by his emotions and, we hope, by his morals, when he deposits his

decision in the ballot box.

       In order to come to grips with our problem, which I already

have delayed as long as I decently can, we must reach some agreement

on definitions and limits of the subject matter.  For example, what does

the first word "must" imply.  Among other things Webster says it means

"obliged by logical necessity" and "morally required."  Both of these

are acceptable meanings for our purpose, but they do not go quite far

enough.  We must, and we shall attempt to, determine whether "must"

means absolutely and without exception, or does it allow some latitude

for the exercise of Judgment?  Also, it fails to take the time element

into account.  Does it imply that we must start maintenance now, or does

it permit the flexibility which will allow us to Justify postponement

of action on an anticipated need to some future date when the potential

need becomes an actuality?

       Likewise Webster is of some help on "maintain", but again his

definition, "To hold or keep in any particular state or condition,"

does not go nearly far enough.  What state or condition must we hold?

Must it be the natural state, the present polluted state, or some

future improved state?  If it is to be an improved state where do we

draw the line regarding the degree of improvement?

       I trust that we need not to go to Webster for a definition of

water, but his definitions of quality as "Natural superiority in

kind" and "Excellence of character" fit right in with the state in

which we would prefer to keep our waters.  Unfortunately, we must temper

this highly desirable state of affairs with considerations of practical-

ity of achievement.

       Let1 s decide just what we want to talk ebout so that we can

confine our discussion within reasonable limits.  I suggest as our

objective the development of such guidelines as we can agree upon

which will best serve our attempts to plan water quality maintenance

programs.  The «•*" of such planning should be to assure, within limits

of available quantity, water of such quality at such places and such

times as will best serve the public welfare.

       The objective of water planning frequently is expressed as

development of a plan which will assure maximum development of the

region involved.  I am not sure Just what is implied by "maximum

development" but I am inclined to think of it in terms of the most

people that the area will support.  I am not sure that the most

people is what we really want.  After all, the maximum development

of a land area in terms of number of people is represented by our

city slums.  Obviously this is not a type of situation that we want,

for most of our major cities, aided by both state and Federal govern-

ments, are spending huge sums of money to dismantle slum areas and

distribute the overcrowded populations to other areas where they

have more room and more healthful and pleasant living conditions.

By analogy, the greatest possible number of people using our streams

would reduce the streams to dead, lifeless, and stinking sources

of contagion with minimum usefulness and no aesthetic appeal.  I am

quite sure that this type of maximum development neither is wanted

nor will be tolerated.

       It is for this reason that I prefer to state our objective as

maximum service to the public welfare rather than as ma.yi m^m develop-

ment of an area.  And it is around the problem of what water uses

truly are best for the public welfare that all our vexations, our

doubts, and our soul searching center.  Is it possible that we are

assuming too much responsibility in this area?  Do we, as public health

engineers, feel obliged in our water planning to evaluate all of the

innumerable and highly complex factors that influence the public

welfare?  If so, we are setting ourselves an impossible task, for we

simply are not equipped with either «"n of the knowledge or all of

the visdom necessary for the task.  We are presumptous if ve assume

that ve are so equipped.  When ve recognize this ve can begin to

think about the other disciplines that ve must call on to work with

us and assist us in reaching our decisions.  I am sure ve shall feel

more comfortable about our problem vhen ve reach this state of maturity.

Even vhen ve thus resolve some portion of our concern ve still are

faced with the fact that there exist within our own field of competence

considerable areas in which we yet have much to learn.  If there were no

such areas there would be little or no need for the professional public

health engineer and no necessity for the exercise of judgment.  If ve

knew all we needed to know someone long ago would have produced a

handbook, uxsookbook style, which anyone could follow to produce a sound

water quality management plan.  We soon would be out of vork.

       In seeking our guidelines let's start with such generally

accepted precedents as we already have before ve soar into the realm

of speculation.

       Probably our soundest precedent is that of riparian rights.

In this country the riparian rights doctrine was borrowed from the

English system of Jurisprudence, where the doctrine had been in

effect for many, many decades.  This doctrine is lav in about

two-thirds of our states.  It assures all owners of property

adjacent to a stream the right to use of the natural undiminished

flow of the stream with its natural quality unimpaired by upstream


       The other third of our states employ the doctrine of prior

appropriation.  This vests the right of beneficial consumptive use

of water quantity in the user who first establishes his right to

such use.  This type of use, however, is of a usufructuary

character.  Again turning to Webster we find that usufructuary means

having or possessing a usufruct, which is of little help.  Tracking

down usufruct, however, we find that this means "the right of using —

the fruits — of an estate or other thing belonging to another without

impairing the substance."   To me, this Implies that the right to

quantitative use does not include permission to alter the natural

quality of any water of the stream which is not used or which is

used and returned to the stream.

       Thus we have a clear, legal mandate from the public, through

our laws on water rights, that the natural quality of our streams

is to "be maintained.  I am not aware that either of the two doctrines

awards the user of water the right to impair the quality of the

stream provided he decides that it is too costly for him to maintain

the natural quality.

       The legal mandate is clearly supported by the emotional

attitude of the public.  Man has an instinctive affinity for water.

His very body is more than ninety percent of the stuff.  The

biologists tell us that life itself originated in the sea,  and that

somewhere along the evolutionary chain our ancestors emerged from

their watery home to begin their struggle for existence on dry land.

Man always has been restricted in his travels by the need for an

ever present source of drinking water to maintain life, or else

he has had to carry his drinking water with him.  Before he was

able to transport substantial quantities of water for considerable

distances he lived, as a matter of necessity and of convenience,

very close to a body of water.  All of these associations appear

to have left their imprint in that recess of the mind of Man in

which his instinct resides.  Man instinctively loves water.  Even

as a baby there are few pleasures that he enjoys more than his

daily bath.  As a child some of his happiest moments are spent

wading in water, with or without shoes, splashing in it, and sailing

toy boats on it.  As an adult, water has a tremendous appeal when

he seeks the recreation that is so essential to his welfare.  He

loves to swim in and under it, glide over it in a boat or on skiis,

take fish from it, and just sit and look at it.  On vacation he will

travel hundreds of miles to enjoy his favorite body of water, be it

ocean, lake, or turbulent mountain stream.  His first requirement in

considering a suitable location for a summer cottage of his own

usually is that it be within sight of a body of water.  But the sense

of pleasure that he derives from association with clear, clean,

sparkling water gives way to frustration, disgust, even rage, if

the water exhibits observable effects of pollution.

       I use the word "observable" advisedly, for the public judges

the condition of streams most often by what they can see and smell.

Occasionally they may condemn a stream by the taste of their drink-

ing water, but more often they are apt to blame the poor water

plant operator for putting too much of "that chlorine" in the treated

water.  But when they see feces, condoms, toilet paper, rags, grease,

and the infinite variety of other solids discharged from sewers

floating on or bobbing in a stream, they know that stream is polluted.

When they see excessively muddy or unnaturally colored water, they

conclude that the stream is polluted.  When a stream carries an

excessive organic load which imparts that typical grey, dull,

lifeless appearance the public knows it is polluted.  When they

smell the rotten egg odor of hydrogen sulfide evolved from sludge

deposits or from a septic stream they are convinced that pollution

is the cause.  When they no longer can catch fish, or if their

catch consists of carp or other scavengers and does not include

game fish, they "blame pollution.  And I am not aware of many things

in this life that can arouse such public hue and cry as the sight

of a stream and its "banks littered with dead and decaying fish.

Even those who are not fishermen become indignant.  Perhaps the

uproar is aroused by the loss of a few hundred pounds of meat, but

I suspect that more probably it results from revulsion at the visual

evidence that the stream is sick with pollution.

       These, then, are the sensible evidences of pollution which we

must control.  I am convinced that we have a mandate from the public,

based in large degree on emotions, to keep our streams from looking

and smelling polluted.  Unless we maintain the waters of our streams

in some semblance of their natural appearance the public will give

us very little credit for our water quality control efforts,  no matter

what our success In controlling effects of unseen pollution may be.

If the public frequently sees or smells the effects of stream

pollution there will be very little Incentive for them to continue

to support water quality control programs.

       The emotions which are Involved In the public's reactions

to what they can see and smell have led to legal means of protection

against generally unpleasant conditions which arouse those emotions.

This protection is provided by our ordinances on nuisances.  These

ordinances assure the individual that he does not have to put up

with unduly unpleasant sights, odors, noises, and a multitude of

other conditions to which his senses and emotions react adversely.

The general principle that no one has a right to impose a nuisance

on someone else has been accepted without question by those who have

responsibilities for stream pollution control.  Everyone in this

business agrees that no nuisance shall result from stream pollution.

Even those who reach the reluctant conclusion that economics dictate

that certain streams must be abandoned to waste disposal insist

that such use shall not result in production of nuisances, regardless

of the cost of prevention.  This insistence is reflected in the stream

pollution control laws or regulations of practically every state.

The portions of the codes involving nuisances reflect major concern
over prevention of odor nuisances, since most of them specify main-
tenance of some minimum dissolved oxygen content, low though it
may be.
       Another principal firmly established by pollution control
agencies also is based on the public's emotional reactions to
nuisances.  This principal is the almost universal agreement that
all domestic sewage should be subjected to a minimum of primary
treatment.  Many state pollution control agencies also require
that industrial wastes be subjected to equivalent treatment, which
basicly involves the removal of floating and settleable solids.
Why do our control agencies generally agree on these requirements?
We know that primary treatment accomplishes very little in the
reduction of the unseen effects of pollution.  The primary sewage
plant effluent contains 60 to 75 percent of the initial biochemical
oxygen demand, 30 to 60 percent of the suspended solids, and 25 to
75 percent of the pathogenic bacteria.  I consider the relatively
small fractions removed as a minor accomplishment at best.  It would
be interesting to know how many primary treatment plants have solved
dissolved oxygen problems.  I suspect that the number of those which

have accomplished this would be a very small percentage of the

total that have been built.  The usual primary sewage plant

turns loose into the receiving stream at least one-half, and

probably more, of the pathogenic bacteria in the raw sewage.

This residue presents a health hazard to all who use the water

downstream for recreation.  Ify own reaction is that I would

have little, if any, more hesitation in swimming in a stream

carrying raw sewage than in one carrying a primary effluent.

1 would not swim in either, and 1 do not feel comfortable

boating on either.

       In spite of the deficiencies of primary treatment we

generally agree that it must be provided for all sewage and

many industrial wastes, regardless of cost.  I am convinced

we have agreed to this requirement because it does control

those things which the public can see and smell.  The floating

solids which offend the eyes and the suspended solids which

produce sludge banks to offend the nose are controlled.

       The benefits of preventing these offenses certainly are

intangible ones to which no dollar and cents value presently

can be attached.  We accept the requirement of primary treatment

on such an intangible basis without bothering to attempt a balance
of costs against monetary benefits.  Why, then, do we become so
concerned over balancing costs against monetary benefits when we
are dealing with the unseen effects of pollution, such as the
hazardous billions of pathogenic organisms which escape from
primary sewage treatment plants, or the dissolved organic solids
in industrial wastes which may deplete the dissolved oxygen below
levels that will support a balanced fish population?  There appears
to be a degree of inconsistency here, which may be one of the
reasons for some of our soul searching over how much waste treat-
ment we should recommend.
       I trust we can agree at this point that we have legal
support both in our water rights laws for seeking high degrees
of waste treatment, and in our nuisance ordinances for essentially
complete control of observable effects of pollution.  It is my
opinion that the public1s affinity for water and their reaction,
emotional if you please, to evidences of defilement by pollution
have played an Important part In the evolution of these laws.
       Thus far we have not approached our problem from the stand-
point of morals.  It should be easy, it appears to me, to reach

agreement on this phase of the problem.  Either it is right for

a municipality or an industry to discharge pollutional material

which imposes on downstream users of water or it is wrong.

I see little real difference between such discharge of refuse

and that of pitching my garbage across the fence into my

neighbor's yard as the easiest way to dispose of it, or of

allowing my underground sewage disposal field to spew sewage

across my neighbor's property line because it would cost me too

much to repair it.  I spend money to avoid defiling my neighbor's

property.  I would consider it wrong, and would be nagged by a

very guilty conscience, if 1 did otherwise.  Should the conscience

of the corporation, be it municipal or industrial, be any less

acute?  Unfortunately the corporate conscience frequently appears

to be much less acute, and at times even non-existent.  Fortunate-

ly our society has laws to deal with its members who have no

consciences.  When persuasion fails the law should be brought

into play to make those do right who otherwise would do wrong, or

at least to stop them from doing wrong.

       Perhaps you think I have talked too much about the law in

my preceding discussions.  1 have intentionally emphasized the legal

factors.  I think we sanitary engineers and economists are prone

to become so intent on our engineering and economic calculations,

evaluations, and Judgments that we are apt to forget the intent

of our lavs and to substitute instead our own opinions as guiding

principles.  Perhaps our opinions are more valid in this particular

field than are the laws of our land.  If so, ultimately, the laws

will be changed to reflect our opinions.  Until that time, I

consider it incumbent on us to bring our recommendations on waste

disposal into line with the intent of our laws.

       In patterning our recommendations after the intent of our

laws we must follow the interpretations of the laws.evolved by

the courts.  The judicial interpretation of the doctrine of

riparian rights, for example, appears to be leaning in the

direction of reasonable use that will not interfere unduly

with downstream uses, rather than demanding strictly that there

be absolutely no interference with such uses.  This trend

immediately brings us face to face with decisions regarding how

much interferences with downstream uses will we permit.  Let's

see what precedents we have to guide us in these decisions.  There may

not be all we need, but at least they can serve as a starting point.

       Our "best precedents probably are those used as guides or as

requirements of state water pollution control agencies.  I had

occasion fairly recently to review state practices in this matter,

and found that there is more agreement among the states on certain

factors than you might expect.  Almost all who have produced

official statements on requirements prohibit floating solids and

suspended solids that will cause sludge "banks.  About two-thirds

of the states have official requirements or are members of inter-

state groups which seek to maintain monthly average MPN's of

coliform organisms of less than 5*000 per 100 ml for both sources

of domestic water supply, and for general recreation, such as

fishing and boating.  About the same number specify average

MPN's of less than 1,000 per 100 ml for swimming and other water

sports involving body contact.  Again, the same two-thirds of the

states seek to maintain average dissolved oxygen concentrations

of at least 5 mg/1.  Most of the states recognize the Public Health

Service drinking water standards both for finished drinking water

in toto and for streams as regards those numerous constituents,

principally inorganic in nature, which are not eliminated or

controlled by conventional water treatment methods.  Finally,

practically all states recognize the public's insistence that fish

be protected.  This recognition is reflected in requirements that

constituents harmful to fish and other aquatic life be held below

toxic or lethal limits.  These combined requirements,  on which at

least a majority of the state pollution control agencies agree,

furnish a substantial base on which to build in reaching decisions

regarding the degree of waste treatment needed to maintain water

quality.  I judge that application of these requirements, plus

others which are not covered but may be selected at comparable

levels, will assure maintenance of water quality which will serve

the public welfare.

       Thus far I have not touched on water uses as a basis for

determining needed water quality.  I am sure I do not even need

to suggest to this group that water uses must be considered.

If there is no use of a particular stream there is little justifi-

cation for concern over water quality.  I maintain, however, that

there are few streams in this country which are so isolated that

they cannot be reached by car or by boat for fishing and other

aquatic recreation.  Streams protected for fish and other aquatic

life, and for recreation, will have water of a quality which will

meet the needs of most other uses to which they may be put.  Even if

we can prove now that a stream, or a portion of a stream is inaccess-

ible, how can we say that fifty years from now, or within whatever

period we select for planning, the same stream still will be inaccess-

ible?  While we may not insist on immediate protection of an isolated

stream, in letting the bars down we must make it clear that this is

a temporary expedient only and the bars will go up again as soon as

accessibility to the stream may be imminent.

         Many years ago our progenitors in sanitary engineering pro-

pounded an engaging proposition to which those responsible for sources

of wastes immediately and enthusiastically agreed, and unswervingly

have supported since that time.  This proposition is that all streams

should be used, where needed, for waste disposal up to the maximum

assimilative capacities of the streams.  In the beginning of my

professional career I subscribed to that view and spent a great deal

of time sampling, analyzing, and computing to the first or second

decimal just what the assimilative capacities of streams were.  I do

not deny that I found this entrancing.  Gradually over the years, how-

ever, I have become disenchanted with that philosophy.  I cannot pin-

point my reasons for this disenchantment.  Perhaps the one factor, more

than any other, which has changed my viewpoint has been my realiza-

tion, gradual at first but finally overwhelming,  that we are

steadily losing the battle against stream pollution.   Perhaps I have

associated an undeniable result with the wrong cause, but I cannot

help but believe that the philosophy of maximum use of assimilative

capacity has been one of the major stumbling blocks to effective

stream pollution control.  At least twenty years  ago  I heard

Dr. Abel Wolman expound the philosophy that we should obtain all

of the waste treatment that we could within economic  limits.  At that

time such a thought was heresy.  Yet last December in our Nation's

capitol a substantial sector of the National Conference on Water

Pollution agreed in principle with Dr. Wolman1 s earlier stand.

Please note such panel conclusions as:

         1.   "The users of water do not have an  inherent

              right to pollute";

         2.   "Users of public waters have a responsibility

              for returning them as clean as is technically


         3.   "We recommend that the conference express Its

              conviction that the goal of pollution abatement

         3.  is to protect and enhance the capacity of the

             water resource to serve the widest possible

             range of human needs, and that this goal can

             be approached only by accepting the positive

             policy of keeping vaters as clean as possible,

             as opposed to the negative policy of attempting

             to use the full capacity of water for waste


         It appears to me that every avenue of approach that I have

taken in seeking an answer to the question "Must We Maintain Water

Quality?" has led to the same conclusion, that we must maintain

water quality at a high level indeed.  These approaches have

included consideration of our basic water rights and nuisance

ordinances, the public's emotional involvement and rights in the

matter, the rights and wrongs, or morals, of the problem, the

requirements of state pollution control agencies with long years

of experience back of them, and finally the latest expression of

opinion of a substantial segment of the profession which is con-

cerned with water quality and the effects of wastes thereon.

       Against this impressive array of affirmative answers I am

aware of only one negative answer that may be advanced.  That is

the common, inevitable defense of those who oppose corrective

measures that "We cannot afford waste treatment."  My reply is

that I have seen a lot of municipal and industrial waste treatment

plants in my day and I am not aware of a single town or industry

that has been driven into bankruptcy by having to finance waste

treatment facilities.  I do know of two small pulp and paper

mills that reached the final decision to close down at the times

when pressure was brought on them to provide waste treatment.

Both of these were marginal operations, at best, with daily

capacities of 80 and 120 tons of paper, which are small mills

indeed.  I am sure that many economic factors, exclusive of the

cost of waste treatment but including dwindling supplies of

pulpwood, entered into the decisions to close.  While we must

sympathize with the limited numbers of employees that lost

their jobs, I cannot believe that such marginal plants contributed

substantially to the welfare of the communities involved.

       I admit that I did not know where I was headed when I

started preparing this discussion.  Instead of attempting to

guide my arguments I have tried to let them lead me to a

conclusion.  Probably the rambling nature of my discussion

reflects this groping.  In any event, I believe it has led

me to a more honest and sincere conclusion than I would have

reached if I had formed a preconceived answer,  My first

reaction that a simple, unequivocal "Yes" was the only answer

needed has been modified somewhat, but I still believe that

a positive answer, with explanations and possibly a few

exceptions to prove the rule, is the proper answer.




                                                    DRAFT :MESCHEIDT:3-l6-6l

                      Principles and Policies for the
        Evaluation and Reimbursement of Water Supply and Pollution
          Abatement Benefits from Federal Water Storage Projects

       This paper deals with the problems associated with evaluating and
paying for the benefits derived from the use of water stored in Federal
reservoirs for those purposes which are the concern of the Public Health
Service.  These are municipal and industrial water supply, and water
pollution abatement by means of dilution through augmentation of low river
flows.  These purposes are hereafter called simply "water supply" and
"dilution" or "low flow augmentation", as the case may be.  The paper is
confined to a discussion of the principles and policy issues involved.  If
and when these principles and policies are agreed to, it will be desirable
to prepare more detailed procedural guides for their effectuation, but no
attempt has been made herein to delineate such procedures.
       As a basis for the discussion of these problems, it is desirable to
make clear certain tenets or concepts on which the discussion has been based.
These are:
       1.  Primary effort in pollution abatement should be toward
           the reduction or elimination of polluting wastes at the
           source, by means of waste treatment plants or other means.
       2.  Dilution is not a substitute for waste removal, but should
           be looked upon, rather as a supplement to a program of
           treatment and of ultimate removal.  In-tho lafrfacp-eaase,
           prevlsian^jQf-dilut4oa=»ater nhmvVfl—hr—pnnnMn-Rd. a qfTonflmr
           defense, an interlmndeamire, to be-jcesoxbed^to^njiJiifepOFary
           basis_pending the time j^es_bjti.er_treatment methods-can^be

                                   - 2 -

       3.  The costs of waste treatment or removal should rest first

           with those producing the wastes, but, beyond this, the costs

           of storing dilution water producing widespread benefits

           should be non-reimbursable.

       k.  In providing storage for a water supply, the necessity of

           providing additional water for the dilution of the resulting

           treated waste effluents should be recognized.

       5.  In developing Federal reservoir sites, every effort should

           be made to conserve their full potentialities >through

           development of optimum storage capacity.

       While the measurement of benefits usually enters into the formula

for determining the costs to be assessed against or allocated to the

various purposes of a multiple purpose Federal reservoir project, the

actual measurement and evaluation of the benefits themselves is a

separate problem from that of deciding who should pay the costs of pro-

viding them.  The two problems are dealt with separately in the following

two sections.

Section I

       Criteria for Assigning Water Supply and Pollution Abatement Benefits

to Federal Storage Reservoir Projects as a Basis for Determining Reimburse-

ment Policy.

       (a)  Water Supply.  The basis for including water supply storage

in Federal projects, and the requirements for the reimbursement of the costs

thereof, are specifically prescribed in P. L. 500 «• 8jth Congress,  and need no

further elaboration here.

       (b)  Pollution Abatement.  Decisions regarding the reimbursement

policy to be followed in dealing with pollution abatement "benefits resulting

                                   - 3 -
from releases of water stored in Federal reservoirs are complicated by
questions of public policy concerning the use of dilution as a means of
abating pollution.  Two categories of benefits are involved; incidental
benefits, and planned benefits.
       1.  Incidental benefits.  When low stream flow augmentation is
produced as a result of the operation of a Federal project for other
purposes, such as flood control; navigation, or municipal water supply, an
incidental improvement in the quality of the waters of the stream usually
takes place.  This improvement may be due to the dilution of wastes or
other pollutants which the stream carries, to an increase in the dissolved
oxygen of the stream, or perhaps to a lowering of its temperature.  Detri-
ments may also occur, as when oxygen deficient water is released from the
bottom levels of reservoirs.  While these benefits are generally not
planned for in the design of the project, and usually do not enter into
the computations of benefit-cost ratios, they are nevertheless very real
and should in some fashion be credited to, or in the case of detriments,
charged against, the project.  This is usually done by means of a separate
discussion or presentation in the project report, including a monetary
evaluation wherever this is possible.  Under the circumstances described,
it appears entirely proper to credit the Federal project on a non-reim-
bursable basis with these incidental pollution abatement benefits, even
where the improvement -in stream quality results in a windfall benefit to
those causing pollution in the stream by making it possible for them to
postpone construction of treatment works which would otherwise be required.
One caution needs to be raised regarding such cases, however.  Because of
population increase, economic growth, or changes in stream quality standards

resulting from adoption of new sociological or environmental objectives,

such windfall benefits should never be looked upon as continuing on a

permanent basis.  Their evaluation should be based upon the timing of

future stream quality requirements as determined by the best possible

projections of probable future demands upon the stream, and the duration

of the benefits and the corresponding credits to the Federal project should

be limited accordingly.

       2.  Planned benefits.  In addition to the situation described above,

improvement in stream quality through release of stored water may be

specifically provided for in planning a water storage project.  At the

present time, no general authorization exists for the inclusion of this

purpose in the design of Federal projects, but in several instances it has

been specifically included in the authorization of individual projects, and

studies now underway are recognizing this potentiality.  It is expected

that such authorizations may increase in the future, and the problem of

assigning responsibility for meeting the costs of providing such benefits

therefore takes on added significance.

       The determination of reimbursement policy with respect to stream

quality improvement benefits produced under the planned conditions just

described is much more complex than in the case of incidental benefits.

At issue is the question of the degree to which non-reimbursable Federal

expenditures, that is, contributions by the nation at large, are justified

for this purpose, in relation to expenditures which should be made by

non-Federal interests for waste treatment works or other pollution abate-

ment measures available to them in the first place.  Specifically, the

question is that of determining the level of waste treatment which polluters

                                   - 5 -
should be expected or required to provide, before pollution abatement by
dilution at Federal expense may be considered justified.
       Said in another way, the determination of the justifiable degree of
planned Federal participation in stream quality improvement endeavors,
through low flow augmentation, requires first a determination of the amounts,
kinds, iind degrees of concentration cf those substances which may properly
be allowed to be discharged into a river, and the degree of dilution of
these wastes required after treatment to maintain adequate water quality,
as determined by appropriate authority.
Determination of Degree of Treatment Required Before Dilution is Warranted
       A rational approach to this problem"is provided if it is recognized
that tha waters of rivers and lakes are generally considered to lie within
the public domain, and that they may be withdrawn for use only with the
permission of the particular governmental agency, usually the State,
having jurisdiction in each case.  This is true under both the riparian
rights, or reasonable use, doctrine and the prior appropriation doctrine.
Under the reasonable use doctrine, the public has broad general rights in
the waters of a stream, but the owners of property abutting the stream
have the right to the reasonable use of the waters.  Except for such
beneficial consumptive uses as drinking, stock watering, lawn watering;
etc., however, each riparian owner must, after use, allow the stream to
flow undiminished in quantity or quality to the next user downstream,
unless he is legally authorized to do otherwise.  The prior rights
doctrine provides for allocation of waters for beneficial consumptive uses
but does not permit the user to discharge indiscriminately polluted waters
back to the stream.

                                   - 6 -

       The public has broad interests in most streams with respect to

sources of water supply, fish and wildlife resources, recreational values,

and esthetic and environmental influences.  An additional point to bear in

mind is that, except for water consumed through evaporation and transpiration

in comsection with irrigation usage, and the very small amounts of water

actually consumed by people and animals, withdrawn waters are largely

returned to the river after use.  Because of this latter fact, withdrawn

water g.hould preferably be looked upon as a service facility rather than

as a commodity, as has heretofore generally been the case.

       As a service facility, withdrawn water is used mostly as a solvent,

cleans&r, transporter or coolant, to carry away sewage and other waste

products, dirt and grime, and heat, following which, because there is

nowhere else to dispose of it, most of it is returned to the public domain

in a Itike or river, usually with most of the substances it was required to

transport left in it.  Viewed in this light, the service which the water

user receives is essentially that normally provided by a rental facility.

The rental price, in the case of water, of course, is the cost of the

facilities required to withdraw, use, treat and return it.   Under these

circumstances, it is only proper that the rentor, at his own expense,

should remove the transported commodities from the vehicle and otherwise

make ib suitable for the next user, before returning it, or compensate the

owner (the public) for the cost of such removal.  This is particularly true

where bhe transported materials are obnoxious.  This principle is entirely

in keeping with the water rights doctrines under which the  waters of the

U. S. are managed.

       During the earlier period in the nation's history when population

was less dense, there was little recognized and accepted stream damage, and

                                   - 7 -

disposal of wastes into streams, in many instances,  did not conflict

seriously with other users.   Today, with increasing congestion,  close

proximity of uses and users, and almost universal use of water for flushing

away wastes, the discharge of large quantities of wastes into streams

impairs their quality to the detriment of both downstream users and the

genera], public.  Under these conditions, the use of a stream as a vehicle

for the disposal of sewage or other wastes is contrary to the public interest

and the doctrines of water use.

       Unfortunately, under current practices and within the limits of

existing technical knowledge and the presently accepted limits of available

economic resources, water is the cheapest convenient, generally accepted,

means of transporting and handling sewage and some other offensive or

detrimental wastes.  Thus, with some small scale exceptions, the discharge

of waste waters into public water bodies is at the present time the only

practicable method of disposing of them.  Under these circumstances it is

obvious that water users, if they are to meet their obligations to each

other end to the general public, must minimize the adverse affects of

presently accepted waste disposal practices by treating their wastes,

before discharging them into streams, in such manner as to remove as much

of the detrimental substances which they contain as possible.  The provision

of water at national expense for the dilution of wastes, as a means of

reducirg stream damage, in lieu of proper waste treatment, is, under this

premise, not only contrary to public policy, but constitutes a subsidy to

the polluter, and should, therefore, not be condoned or proposed.  This

                                   - 8 -

general principle has been clearly enunciated in the testimony of Public

Health Service officials before Congressional committees.*

       Acceptance of the foregoing premise requires that "proper treatment"

be defined.  It is, of course, not possible3 at any presently acceptable

econanic cost, to remove all polluting substances from used water.  However,

in the case of domestic sewage and of industrial wastes of a similar organic

nature, a combination of primary and secondary treatment can, at quite

reasonable cost, remove, on an average, at least 80$ of the oxygen demanding

organic wastes.  Lagoons or ''polishing ponds'1 and other treatment processes

can, where necessary, further reduce the BOD remaining in secondary treatment

plant effluents at additional cost.  It would appear, therefore, that a

minimum of secondary treatment or its equivalent is not an unreasonable

prerequisite for crediting non-reimbursable pollution abatement benefits

to Federal water storage projects.  Similarly, with some other types of

industrial pollutants, process improvements, treatment, impoundment or other
* Statement of Assistant Surgeon General Mark Hollis before the Senate
. Committee on Public Works:

       ". . .in line with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
       pollution abatement should be regarded a primary responsibility
       of State and local interests.  We, therefore, suggest that the
       record be clear that low flow augmentation should not be used as
       a substitute for sewage treatment works required by State
       authority or contemplated in comprehensive pollution control
       plans prepared under the Federal act.  However, it is often
       difficult even with the best known treatment practices to
       preserve quality of water in streams suitable for normal re-use
       purposes during periods of minimum flows.  Augmentation of low
       flows during such periods would be highly beneficial ..."

                                  - 9 -

processes can substantially reduce the amount of polluting material allowed

to enter a stream.  Only after all practical treatment measures have been

applied, such as the above, should non-reimbursable pollution abatement

benefits from low flow augmentation be credited to Federal projects.  On

this point, it should be noted that these levels of required treatment

conform to the conclusions reached at the National Water Pollution Con-

ference in Washington in December I960, that "the objective of pollution

abatement measures should be to keep national water bodies as clean as

possible rather than to attempt to use the full capacity of water for waste

assimilation'', as heretofore advocated.

       3!n some situations and with some classes of pollutants, no methods

of treatment are at this time available at any reasonable cost.  Examples

are the plant nutrients remaining in sewage after treatment, certain

persistent industrial chemicals, acid mine drainage, heat, and salts

dissolved from natural deposits.  To be sure, a procedure can be instituted

for reducing or preventing some of these substances from entering a stream

in some Instances, but in many cases no economical corrective measures have

yet been devised.  Furthermore, a considerable part of the nation is

dependent for its economic wellbeing upon industrial establishments that

produce wastes, such as these, which, at the present time, are difficult

or impossible to treat at economical costs.  Under the latter circumstances,

sound judgment should be applied to avoid an unreasonable insistence on the

elimination of such wastes to the economic detriment of the community.  In

most of the foregoing situations, the planned dilution of the wastes involved,

at general public expense, appears proper pending the development of

economical methods of preventing or treating them.

                                 - 10 -

       In applying the above policy, it should, of course,  be made certain

that in no case is the polluter thereby permitted to escape his responsibility

where treatment or control is feasible.  Neither should any polluter be

allowed to postpone provision of treatment facilities, when treatment is

or becomes possible, because of the improvement in river water quality

resulting from such planned low flow augmentation.

       It is frequently argued that even where treatment is economically and

technically feasible, dilution could be substituted for such treatment if

this ±E cheaper and if, at the same time, damage to the stream is in »ii

respects satisfactorily prevented.  Under these circumstances, the cost of

providing the dilution water should, of course, be met by the polluter,

because he is thereby absolved from the necessity of constructing treatment

facilities which he should, or would, otherwise have had to construct.

Generally speaking, however, substitution of dilution for treatment is

considered contrary to public policy because of possible dangers to health

and damages to esthetic and other public values associated with the use

of a river for disposal of raw or partially treated wastes.  Where permitted,

it should certainly be viewed as only an interim solution.

       On this same question of permitting substitution of dilution for

treatment, it is useful to observe, however, that project planning should

be based on the concept of optimum utilization of dam sites and that, for

this purpose, all possible uses for the waters which could be stored in a

proposed reservoir site should be investigated.  If, under these circum-

stances, economic studies should indicate a need for dilution water at a

future date, a pollution source could now use this dilution to permit a

lower degree of satisfactory treatment.  Such substitution should be limited,

                                 - n -

however, to the period of time during which the water is not needed for

higher priority uses.  Present use of stored -water for dilution should

not grant a right in perpetuity.  Also, it would appear proper under these

conditions to require the polluter to pay an appropriate amount for the

dilution water as a substitute for the costs of the postponed treatment

plant.  In the present discussion, we are dealing primarily with those

situations where a general pollution problem exists in spite of the

provision of required waste treatment, and where dilution water as an

additional pollution abatement measure for general public benefit, is

provided at Federal expense.

       Proposed Policy Regarding Use of Low Flow Augmentation for Pollution

Abatement.  On the basis of the foregoing discussion, it is proposed that

reimbursement for pollution abatement benefits resulting from lov flow

augmentation from Federal reservoirs be based on the following policy:

       1.  Incidental pollution abatement benefits resulting from the

           operation of Federal projects for other purposes may be

           credited on a non-reimbursable basis to those projects,ev.en

           though construction of treatment facilities which would

           otherwise be required is thereby postponed, but such

           benefits should be computed for a limited time only, based

           upon a projection of total future demands upon the stream

           for water for all purposes.

       2.  Where pollution abatement by means of low flow augmentation

           is proposed as a non-reimbursable planned purpose of a

           Federal project, only those pollution abatement benefits

           should be credited to the project which would be produced

                           -  12 -

    after the  pollutors have  first provided efficient secondary

    treatment  of their wastes, or if this is not possible because

    of the type of wastes,  then treatment to the degree

    economically permitted  by existing knowledge; provided

    however, that where secondary treatment or  its equivalent

    will ultimately be provided but will require time to introduce,

    a specific phasing in period of time may be allowed during

    which credit for non-reimbursable benefits below secondary

    treatment  levels may  be claimed for the project.

                                             'I* elf*
3-  In those  situations where the dfgree__of   "        '-
    other—poiiution^^-^g^Siieved by treatment,  or the mini mum

    oxygen level or concentration of pollutants to be permitted

    in the stream,  as established by the  State, is below the level

    which efficient secondary or equivalent  treatment can provide,

    only those non-reimbursable benefits  should be claimed  for

    dilution water from Federal reservoirs which  would be produced

    following efficient secondary treatment  or its equivalent.

    In those situations where different criteria  for permissible

    pollution are set by different States on the  same interstate

                                 - 13 -

           the non-reimbursable benefits claimed be based on less

           than efficient secondary treatment or its equivalent.

Section II

Procedures for Evaluating Water Supply and Pollution Abatement Benefits.

       Difficulties in measuring benefits.  The measurement of water supply

and pollution abatement benefits derived from water stored in Federal

reservoirs is rendered difficult by the varied nature of these benefits and

by the absence of adequate economic tools for the purposes.

       Municipal and industrial water supplies serve a wide variety of

domestic and public purposes, including transportation of domestic and

industrial wastes.  The water provided enters into, but is only one of

many ingredients in a great number of industrial and other processes.  It

promotes or preserves health, provides recreational, esthetic and other

satj.sfactions of quite an extensive, but often quite an intangible nature,

and otherwise plays a basic role in our whole life process.

       It is generally agreed that the price paid for a water supply does

not necessarily represent the value of the benefits derived from its use.

Yet the true value of these benefits is difficult, if not impossible, to

determine, because social as well as economic values are involved*, and no

generally acceptable method of measuring them has yet been devised.  Thus,

arbitrary and admittedly inadequate methods must be relied upon for their

determination.  This condition is typical of all situations where the

benefits involved are of a more or less intangible nature.
* See addendum No. 1 on "An Approach to the Problem of Determining the
. Value of Water"

       !Phe abatement of pollution in a river by the release of stored water

during Low flow periods prevents damage to the river by improving its

quality as well as increasing its flow, thereby permitting it to perform

more satisfactorily a number of functions which it could not otherwise do.

Thus, tine physical and esthetic appearance of the stream and its environment

can be preserved or improved, fish ar.l aquatic life supported, recreation

enhanced, tastes and odors reduced, and dangers to health and damages to

physical property greatly diminished.  Excess costs of treating polluted

waters for water supply purposes may also be prevented.  Heat pollution

may be dissipated by the lowering of river temperatures.  In some cases,

the benefits may, of course, be negative in character, that is, they may

be detrimental to the river as in the case of oxygen deficient water

release! from the bottom levels of a reservoir.

       Incidental benefits of a similar nature may also result from releases

of water for other purposes such as municipal or industrial water supply

(where bhe stream is used as the transporting vehicle), navigation, flood

control, or power generation.

       Some of these various benefits from low flow augmentation can be

evaluated directly.  For example, it is possible to determine the reduction

in costs of treating withdrawn waters before use, as well as any reduction

in the =ost of treating wastes discharged to the river, made possible by

the dilation.  Potential pollution damages to river structures, boat hulls,

engines, etc., can be computed.  It may even be possible to evaluate the

adverse effects of polluted waters upon the market value of abutting

properties.  But many of the damaging effects of pollution which are

reduced or eliminated by dilution are difficult, if not impossible, to

                                   - 15 -
evaluate in monetary terms by existing methods.  This is particularly true
of damages to fishing, recreational pursuits, esthetic values, and environ-
mental influences in general, where benefits can be described in terms of
numbers of persons served or other similar quantities, but cannot be reduced
to dollars.
       For those situations where dilution results in the elimination of
the usue.l treatment facilities which would otherwise be required, the upper
limit of the value of the benefits produced by the dilution would normally
be the costs of the treatment plant eliminated.  In those situations where
dilution would still have been required, even if the treatment plant had
been buj.lt, benefits in addition to those represented by the cost of the
treatment plant eliminated must also be evaluated.  These ''excess1' benefits
would be computed in the same manner as those discussed below, where all
possible: treatment has been provided, but where dilution is still required
to abates the pollution in the stream.
       l^resently accepted method of assigning values to water supply and
pollution abatement benefits.  As indicated above, no satisfactory method
has yet been devised for evaluating some of the described water supply and
pollution abatement benefits provided by stored water, although many people
feel that they far exceed the cost of acquiring the necessary water.  In
the absence of an acceptable technique for measuring them, these benefits
have, for convenience, arbitrarily been equated equal to the cost of the
cheapest feasible alternative means of achieving the same benefits, in the
absence of the proposed project.  Where a feasible alternative is cheaper
than the project under study, it would, of course, normally be expected to
be adopted in lieu of the project, or would in any case be considered the

                                  - 16 -

upper limit of the cost which the beneficiaries would be justified in paying

for the project in question, as well as the arbitrary measure of the benefits

to be derived from it.  Thus, even if it were not necessary to assign a value

to the benefits from a proposed Federal water storage project, it would still

be necessary to explore all possible alternatives in order to determine

whether the project is economically justified, and the arbitrary adoption,

for mere convenience of handling, of some one alternative, to the exclusion

of all others, is improper, unless it can be shown to be in fact the most

economical practicable alternative available.

       llhis arbitrary procedure for evaluating water supply and pollution

abatement benefits is admittedly unsatisfactory and provides values which

leave the investigator with the frustrating feeling that they may be very

wide of the mark.  In fact, it really does not solve the problem at all

since it begs the question by flatly assuming that the benefits warrant

the proposed expenditure in the first place.  This position is justified,

of course, in those reimbursable situations where the beneficiaries are

required to pay the costs or are willing to contract for their payment,

but offers no solution to the problem where the costs are non-reimbursable.
Until such time as economists can provide a more workable technique, however,

we are piretty much stuck with this concept as the basis for the evaluation

of these benefits.

       Alternatives to be studied in evaluating a water storage project.

In the pi-evious paragraphs, it was pointed out that both the limit on

justifiable expenditure for, and the value of the benefits from a water

storage project were,, in the absence of any better procedure, taken to be

equal to the cost of the cheapest feasible alternative method of achieving

                                   - 17 -

the sane benefits in the absence of the project.  Application of this concept

makes it necessary to determine the alternative to be selected in each case,

as the basis for measurement.  The only limitation on the consideration of

alternatives is that they must be true alternatives, which could in fact be

built, and not hypothetical concepts conceived merely for purposes of


       With respect to a municipal and industrial water supply project, the

most obvious alternative is another water supply source.   This may be a

single purpose reservoir, either on some other stream, or at the site of the

proposed project in its absence.  It may also be ground water.  However, in

some instances, other alternatives are available, such as re-cycling or other

conservation of the existing supply to extend its utility, or in the case of

water for cooling, resort to cooling ponds to air cooling.  All such

alternatives should be explored and evaluated.  In approaching this problem,

cognizance should also be taken of the need for additional storage to provide

additional water to dilute the wastes produced when a water supply is used.

       Several types of alternatives are also available for measuring

benefits from low flow augmentation.  As explained above, in those situations

where dilution makes it possible to avoid construction of a primary or

secondary treatment plant, the cost of such a plant is the most obvious

alternative.  Above the secondary treatment plant level,  other alternatives

include (l) a single purpose storage reservoir, either on the site of the

proposed multiple purpose project in its absence, or elsewhere, whichever

is cheajest; (2) tertiary treatment facilities, such as a super-treatment

plant or a lagoon, which would achieve a reduction in the pollution load

on the stream equal to that which would be accomplished by the proposed

                                  - 18 -

dilution; (3) other methods of dealing with the wastes in the first place

in such manner as to prevent them from reaching the stream, or (U) other

methods of providing the benefits which are produced by low flow augmentation.

       With respect to a possible super-treatment plant as an alternative!

benefits must, of course, be computed on the basis of the entire cost of

the plant, not on its rental value during the limited periods when treatment

in excess of standard secondary treatment would be required, since there

would be no other use for such a theoretical plant, and it would, of

necessity, stand idle during those periods when dilution was not required.*

The costs of such a plant would therefore include total capital outlays,.

interest and maintenance costs, plus those operating costs incurred during

actual periods of operation.

       Closely akin to the super-treatment plant alternative is that of a

tertiary stabilization lagoon or "polishing1 pond.  This method may perhaps

be much cheaper than the super-treatment plant, but there are serious

drawbacks to be considered.  These ponds require considerable space.  Since

most cities are located in or near a river bottom, there might not be room

either for such a pond, or for the hydraulic head required for proper

function.lng without expensive pumping.  In some locations the large areas

of land :required would also be costly.  Furthermore, the delay caused by

these lagoons in returning flows to the stream at times when needed downstream

might also be considered as a damage since this waste water has value under

these conditions.
* See addendum No. 2 for additional discussion.

                                   - 19 -

       A variant on the treatment lagoon concept is a simple storage lagoon,

which would merely impound the treated waste water effluents until such time

as the flood flows of the river are great enough to dilute these wastes

without clamage to the stream.  Such storage lagoons would require less storage

volume than the water required to dilute them, and could also be much deeper

and of much less surface area thai treatment lagoons, thus reducing evaporation.

However, suitable sites would probably be difficult to find in river bottom

areas.  !In addition to the drawbacks of space needs and hydraulic head

mentioned above, this scheme also has the disadvantage of deliberately

withhold:Lng water (eventhough polluted) from the stream at a time when its

low dry weather flow might require that the additional water be made available.

       In those situations where the purpose of dilution is to make possible

the withdrawal of water further downstream for water supply purposes, the

cost of zin alternative source of water for these downstream supplies could

serve as the basis for measuring the benefits from low flow augmentation,

and shouILd be explored.  In fact, if the alternative source of water supply

is cheaper, it should be adopted, since dilution would then be uneconomical

in the f:irst place.

       For those situations where a natural pollutant such as a chloride

or sulphate may be too concentrated to permit use of the water for municipal

and industrial purposes, but may not be detrimental to fish or recreation,

dilution would appear to be uneconomical unless a demand either existed or

was anticipated within the period of analysis, for such a water supply from

the rive::.  Also, it might be possible to divert such natural pollutants

from the area of use, as an alternative.

                                   - 20 -

       With respect to recreational and similar benefits from a stream, which

would be produced through dilution, the cost of providing similar benefits

by alternate means should be explored.  In many such situations there

probably would be no apparent alternative facility, but, a search in this

direction for value measurements would seem to hold out possibilities as

compared with the task of tackling recreational values directly.

       In most cases above the secondary treatment level, perhaps the most

practicable alternative for measuring the value of benefits from the project

will be the alternative single-purpose storage reservoir which would be able

to provide the same water supply water as that provided by the project under

study.  All possible sites for such a reservoir should be investigated,

including a reservoir on the project site in the absence of the project.

       In computing the size and cost of the various alternatives, it will,

of course, be necessary to undertake a careful operational study of the

streaa in question, based on hydrologic records, to determine the frequency,

duration, and actual volumes of flows of the river during its low flow stages.

These data, coupled with the patterns of timing and concentration of waste

water discharged to be expected, and the relative costs of correcting the

situation under various assumptions regarding permissible stream damage,

are used to indicate the volumes and durations of dilution water releases

to be provided.  Such a study will provide the basis for determining the

total annual amount of dilution water to be released, and therefore the

storage space to be provided, or, in the case of super-treatment, the

maxinum treatment plant capacity to be provided.  If a storage lagoon is

envisioned, the frequency, magnitude, and duration of the flood flows during

which the lagoon would be discharged, must also be determined by a hydrologic

study in order to determine the maximum waste storage volume required.

                                  - 21 -

       In making a comparison between the cost of the Federal project and

that of an alternative, the procedure is usually complicated by the fact

that most alternatives would usually be financed by non-Federal agencies

over a shorter period of time, and at a different interest rate than the

Federal project.  Because of this fact, it is necessary to convert both

cost:; to a common base  for comparison.  This is perhaps most easily done

by reducing all costs to present worth.  Thus, the total of both interest

cost:; and of operation, maintenance and replacement costs for both the

Federal project and the alternative would be reduced to present worth and

added to the initial investment costs, to get a total figure in each case

for comparison.  It is also possible to make the comparison on an average

annual cost basis by converting all figures to a common time period.

                            Addendum No.  1

                   The Problem of the Value of Water

       A basic problem in determining the value of water stems from the

concept that water is endowed with some fundanentol intrinsic value which

is inherent in its nature.  This assumption is obviously fallacious.

Water has many values, depending on location,  condition and volume of

supply and intended use.  In any given location,  water,  regardless of the

benefits and satisfactions it conveys to the user, is worth what it costs

to get it, up to the point where cost exceeds the price purchasers (used

here in the broadest social as well as commercial sense) are willing to

pay.  In the latter situation, price voluntarily paid represents the limit

of ibs value, this limit often being dictated by nothing more than sheer

judgment on the part of the purchaser.

       The cost of acquiring a water supply for a particular use includes

both direct costs and indirect or associated costs.  These indirect costs

include such things as benefits from other possible uses for the same water,

which must be forgone or renounced, or detrimental affects on other

following uses and users of the same water, for which compensatory measures

must be provided.  It is often difficult to measure these indirect costs.

In many instances they represent social costs which are not reflected in

the costs assigned to the water project.   Some of these affects and inter-

relationships are discussed in following paragraphs.

       A further difficulty in determining water value arises from a tendency

to confuse costs with reimbursements, or with accounting items used in tax

and rate making procedures.  Costs represent expenditures (or benefits

forgone), which must be made in order to acquire water.   Reimbursements

involve the question of who pays these costs--not necessarily the same

                                 - 2 -

people as the users.  Accounting quantities used for tax or rate making

purposes sometimes involve concepts other than or in addition to actual

costs.  These distinctions must be kept clearly in mind,  since the

determination of "who pays what" involves social and political as well

as economic considerations.

       Water serves many purposes—some of which are absolute in the

senE'6 that there are no alternatives to such uses.  The most important

of ttoese is, of course, for domestic water supply—household use.  In

the most limited and narrow sense this means direct human and animal

consumption of water.  Other household uses such as for cooking and personal

and household cleansing are second, followed by transportation of wastes,

watering of gardens and lawns, washing of cars,  etc., in some descending

order of importance.  For the first of these uses, water is worth what-

ever it costs to acquire, since life itself is at stake.   Under these

circumstances, the limit on value is equal to the total resources available

to the people for the acquisition of water, since the only other choices

are to move on to some more favorable location or to perish.

       For all other uses, there usually are choices and alternatives which

help to establish value, although these choices are not necessarily easy

to make.  Most domestic uses have to do with the quality of human living

and environment, and benefits relate mainly to matters of human health or

welfare.  Cleanliness, sanitation, fire protection, and maintenance of

gardens, lawns and parks all contribute not only to physical health and

well-being, but to mental health, and to esthetic, social and cultural

betterment, both on an individual and a community-wide basis.  Such benefits

are .lot as susceptible of monetary measurements as are benefits from uses

of water for other more material(or commercial) purposes.  Thus, where

                                 - 3 -

wa-;er is relatively plentiful,  the value of water to be used for health

and welfare purposes is largely a matter of the judgment or choice of the

purchasers* with respect to the expenditures required to acquire the water,

when compared with other types of benefits which might be secured from

expenditure of the same funds for other purposes.  In areas of inadequate

economic resources or of low income, this choice, even where water is

plentiful, will, however, be dictated largely by the demands upon scarce

funds for more fundamental needs such as food,  clothing and basic shelter.

       On a community-wide basis, the choice is frequently affected by

the attitude of citizens toward taxes or other public charges.  Communities

are; often quoted as being unable to afford an addition to their water

supply system, or a sewage treatment plant to clean up water after use.

Whe.t these communities are really saying is that their citizens prefer to

spe>nd the additional sums involved for more chewing gum,  gasoline,  movies,

or televisions, rather than for the extra taxes or service charges required

to pay the costs of water for green lawns, clean streets,  fire protection

or more fishing in the river.  This attitude arises largely because these

water facilities or services are frequently not paid for directly by the

citizen, and the relationship between the benefits and the payments is

therefore tenuous, or the values to be derived from the extra water or

the cleaner river are not directly comparable to chewing gum or a TV.
* The term "purchaser" is used in the broadest sense and is not intended
to be synonymous with the ultimate consumer.   For public health,  welfare
and other public policy reasons, the purchaser can be and often is a
public body which does not necessarily receive adequate compensation from
the ultimate consuoer, but elects to subsidize his use of water as a
general public welfare policy.  Here, again,  the confusion which arises
between costs and reimbursements must be kept clearly in mind.

                                 - k -
The- value of the water is nevertheless still based on a choice,  dictated
by the cultural pattern or the standard of living of the people of the
       In arid areas, such choices tend to diminish or disappear,  and the
philosophy behind water use changes character,  since a limited water
supply would naturally be applied first to agriculture or other material
productive effort, rather than to, say, watering lawns,  a deferrable use
in the face of more basic economic need.
       With respect to most public uses of water, such as for recreational
facilities, sport fish propagation, or the transportation of wastes, no
precise monetary evaluation of benefits can usually be developed for
comparison with costs or with benefits from other types of usages which
can be so evaluated.  A non-monetary, but nevertheless definite quantitative
evaluation can often be made, however,  Numbers of people served per year,
or numbers or pounds of fish raised or caught per year provide a guide.
The choice is still largely one of judgment in the final analysis, however,
bec&.use specific monetary benefits from possible alternative industrial
or consumptive uses must be compared, from a broad public point of view,
witlr the non-monetary general benefits from these public uses.  (Even so,
some of these latter uses can be shown to induce substantial secondary
activities, which are measurable in money, such as stimulation of local
employment, manufacture and sale of equipment,  sale of food, gasoline,
and other services, which might provide a basis for comparison with similar
specific local benefits from commercial uses.)
       Still another category of uses, which lie in a half world of suscep-
tibility to comparative evaluation, is concerned with such uses as industrial
or power plant cooling or generation of hydroelectric power, where the

                                 - 5 -

basic costs of development for such uses are comparatively low per unit

of water involved.  In these instances,  the water is usually passed on to

others for such other uses as municipal or industrial water supply,

recreation, fish propagation or sewage effluent dilution,  but is modified

either in temperature, or time of availability, to such a degree as to

materially reduce its suitability for these other uses.  These detrimental

effects, which are often not susceptible to monetary evaluation, must

nevertheless be taken into account along with the direct monetary costs

of developing the water supply for these commercial uses.   Where the

succeeding downstream uses are sufficiently important, public authorities

may be faced with the necessity of determining whether the initial

commercial uses shall be denied or additional costs imposed upon the

commercial users for plant modification in order to reduce the detriments

to "hese other downstream users.  (Use of cooling towers,  recycling and

re-regulating reservoirs are examples of such plant modification.)  With

the imposition of these additional costs, the cost of the water may exceed

the value to the prospective commercial users, who may then abandon their

proposals to utilize it for cooling or pover generation, or may adopt

alternative methods of achieving their ends.

       It is only when one gets avay from the intangible field of domestic

and community or other public uses involving problems of health and general

public welfare, that it becomes possible to apply what may be called market

values to water.  There are choices, of course, but under these circum-

stances it can be assumed that the choice would normally be based on the

greE.test economic return.  For example,  it is entirely possible, in

many instances, to determine on a comparative economic basis the production

                                 - 6 -

ancl employment returns from, say, irrigation versus navigation or

industrial water use.  Development of a water supply for an irrigation

project of low yield might prove uneconomical,  but might be justified

for: a recreational or an industrial development which provides sufficiently

hiijh returns to warrant the expenditure.

       Within the area of industrial use, evaluation of a water supply

in relation to cost would again depend on the alternative returns from

various types of industries, some industries being unable to meet high

costs, others being entirely able and willing to do so.  Even in this

situation, choice varies with location, since an industry may be unwilling

or unable to meet high costs in one location, as in Eastern steel mills,

but may, because of a more favorable location with respect to markets,

be prepared to pay higher costs either directly for the water, or for

measures to conserve it—as in the case of the Fontana steel mill in

Csilifornia.  Even this situation is not static.  Eastern steel mills are

unwilling to pay high costs for water only because of the existing

plentiful supply.  At some future time, other demands for water in these

a:reas may make it so valuable that these mills would elect to install

conservation measures rather than pay higher charges for the water.

       As the competition for water increases with increasing population

aad the multiplication of uses, the cost of acquiring or providing water

of suitable quality will gradually increase for various reasons.

Correspondingly, the value of water will also increase, both because of

increased costs and because of competition for scarce supplies.  Thus,

there may arrive a time when, for example,  the cost to the public far the

vse of rivers as residual waste carriers (even after so-called "complete"

                                 - 7 -

treatment) in terms of detriments to other uses and users,  such as

water supply, recreation or fish culture,  may "be so great as to warrant

a search for other methods of waste handling,  or for more elaborate

(even though more expensive) waste treatment facilities such as desalina-

tion of secondary treatment plant effluent.

       The foregoing discussion and examples attempt to point out that

each water use and development situation must "be evaluated on its own

particular merits and to demonstrate that no basic general value can

be assigned to water per se, either with respect to place or time of

occurrence or use.  This does not mean that efforts should not be made

to determine the value of water for any given use or circumstances.

Such determinations are badly needed.  But, even in specific situations,

the determination of the economic and social value of water is difficult,

and much work is required to develop suitable techniques and procedures for

making such evaluations.

                              Addendum No. II

             Computation of Alternative Treatment Plant Costs
                        as a Basis for Evaluating
         Pollution Abatement Benefits from Low Flow Augmentation
       Suggestions have been made that the waste treatment cost figures

developed for the use of the Senate Select Committee, as shown in Committee

Prints 9 and 29, be used as the basis for computing the costs of treatment

as an alternative to dilution.  These figures are inadequate for this purpose.

They were developed to indicate the total cost of providing normal standard

treatment on a continuous basis in a river basin.  Beyond this, Committee

Print 29 had as its objective the determination of the volume of stream flow

required to assimilate such treated wastes, on a basin wide basis, but did

not attempt to evaluate the benefits which would, result from such dilution.

The Committee's problem and the one we are dealing with in attempting to

plac« a benefit value on water provided for low flow augmentation are two

separate stages in the over-all problem of the management of water quality

in a river.

       The cost of treatment which would be required to achieve the same

results as dilution after secondary treatment are far higher than the costs

of standard secondary treatment, and are further complicated by the fact that

such super treatment would only be required at spasmodic intervals when

normal river flow falls below the point where the stream could assimilate

the breated effluents.  Thus, the super-treatment plant must be visualized

as a standby plant constructed solely for this purpose, and standing idle

duriag those times when the river flows were high enough to render use of

the plant unnecessary.  Under these circumstances, the cost of removing a

unit of BOD by the super-treatment plant must be computed by charging out

the entire capital cost of the standby plant against this spasmodic service

and would thus be far higher than that derived from the figures contained in

the Committee print.




                         William H. Davis
                      Water Resources Section
          Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control
                 Public Health Service, Region VII
         U. S. Department of Health, Education, & Welfare
       Let's take a stroll down the streets of Edinburgh in jolly

old England about a century ago.  The cobblestone streets, the quaint

dress of the passers-by, the building architecture, and the store

fronts with manuscript signs soon give us the "plum-pudding" atmos-

phere of a Dickens' novel.  Suddenly, the folks around us look

panicky and head for cover, for the words "GARDY-LOOl" have been

iiounded by a housemaid's voice above us.  Just as the word "FORE"

means take cover on the golf course, the words "gardy-loo" were the

maid's warning that she was throwing the contents of the night soil

pot out of the window.  Having hesitated too long to take cover, we

«.re quite happy to return to the present day, where the words "gardy-

loo" no longer rend the air with shattering impact.

       Modern sewerage systems have made the words "gardy-loo"

obsolete; by connecting each household, hotel, hospital, and indus-

try with a sewer, the noxious, bacteria-laden, and potentially

poisonous wastes of a community are no longer a sidewalk hazard.

Instead, they flow swiftly and silently to the nearest watercourse —

where, without even the courtesy of the warning words "gardy-loo"

they are often thrown into the water plant intake of a downstream

community.  More than warning words are needed, however;  the sewage

must be treated and purified — but by whom? — the city where the

wastes originated? — the receiving stream? — or by the downstream

water plant operator?  Only the factor of economics prevents unanimous

agreement that purification should take place at the  point of origin.

       The word "only" was used not in the sense of minimizing the

importance of economics but to signify that it is the one reason

that prevents 100 per cent purification of waste water by all water

users.  There is a price tag on every gallon of waste water, from

the time it is flushed from the user's premises until it is used

again, or reaches the sea.  Sewers and interceptors are not free;

treatment costs increase with each per cent removal of waste-water

ingredient; degradation of the stream costs a segment of society

their health, recreation, and welfare; and it costs the downstream

user not only the price of an elaborate water treatment plant with

alert operators and high dosages of chlorine but a sword of Damocles

that hangs constantly over their heads in the form of a threat of

virus, untreatable toxic materials, and the potential malfunction of

the human or mechanical operation of their water-treatment plant.

       Until 1948, the Public Health Service had done little more

than sound the "gardy-loo" warning for the stream polluters.  It had

recognized and sanctioned dilution as a money-saving substitute for

waste treatment as long as there was sufficient water in the stream

to "assimilate" the wastes.  Except for PWA-WPA projects, Federal

financial assistance was offered for neither waste nor water treat-

ment; individual treatment plants were the responsibility of the water

users and their respective state health departments.  It is interest-

ing to note that today the Public Health Service has taken a stand

and is granting financial assistance for the construction of sewage

treatment plants but not for dilution water nor water treatment plants.

Let's go back to the year 1948 and see how this came about.

       In that year, the Senate Committee on Public Works (Report

No. 462, 80th Congress) summarized the national problem:
       "Water pollution has become a matter of grave concern
       in many areas, and its damaging effects on the public
       health and natural resources are a matter of definite
       Federal concern as a menace to national welfare.  Abate-
       ment must be undertaken to control it."
       The committee report then stated the Federal responsibility

in solving the problem:  "The Federal Government should take the

initiative in developing comprehensive plans for the solution of

water pollution problems in cooperation with the states."

       As a result of the committee's findings, the Taft-Barkley

bill, Public Law 845, was passed by the 80th Congress.  This bill

was the Nation's first Water Pollution Control Act and put the

Public Health Service in the business of water pollution control by

specifying the responsibilities of the Surgeon General:

       "The Surgeon General shall,  after careful investiga-
       tion, and in cooperation with other Federal agencies,
       with State water pollution agencies and interstate
       agencies, and with municipalities and industries in-
       volved, prepare or adopt comprehensive programs for
       eliminating or reducing the pollution of interstate
       waters and tributaries thereof and improving the sani-
       tary condition of surface and underground waters.
       In the development of such comprehensive programs
       due regard shall be given to the improvements which
       are necessary to conserve such waters for public
       water supplies, propagation of fish and aquatic life,
       recreational purposes, and agricultural, industrial,
       and other legitimate uses . ..."

The bill also instructed the Surgeon General to encourage interstate

compacts for the prevention and abatement of pollution, to support

and aid technical research to devise and perfect methods of treat-

ment, and to provide technical services to state and interstate

agencies and to municipalities in the formulation and execution of

their stream pollution abatement programs.  Financial aid by loans

to local agencies for the construction of pollution abatement works

was authorized, but none was appropriated under the original Act.

Enforcement of water pollution control measures was authorized, but •

only after state efforts had failed and with consent of the upstream

state from which the pollution was originating.  The Senate Committee

on Public Works made a prophetic statement with regard to this bill:

       "... failure to accomplish adequate progress in pollution
       abatement under the terms of this bill, through coopera-
       tive efforts of the Federal and State agencies, will un-
       doubtedly call for much stronger and more direct Federal
       enforcement measures at some subsequent session of the

The horrendous job of organizing, implementing,  and carrying this

new comprehensive program into the states was shouldered by Carl

E. Schwob, Chief of the then embryo Division of Water Pollution

Control.  Under his masterful and dynamic leadership, the entire

United States was divided into ten major drainage areas, with a

field office staffed by four to seven engineers  and scientists in

each basin.

       Before summarizing some of the accomplishments that were

realized during the first three years of the Division's existence,

it should be noted that no attempt was made to take a stand on any

specific degree of waste treatment, but instead, every effort was

expended toward achieving a feeling of cooperation between the states,

industries, conservation groups, and other Federal agencies.  This

period was an all-out attempt to sell the Golden Rule to the Nation's

water users.

       The following are excerpts from Mr. Schwob's statement to

the Committee on Public Works of the House of Representatives, 82nd

Congress, on May 20, 1952:

       "... I like to think of our multiple functions in
       three broad categories .... First, comprehensive
       program planning and development activities; second,
       execution of the comprehensive program; and third,
       technical services and research which support all
       other activities.

       "Under the first category, ... we have issued reports
       covering the 226 basins in the United States, of which
       146 are interstate .... These statements represent
       joint statements of the Public Health Service and the
       States involved ... (and are) ... comprehensive blue-
       prints of pollution abatement needs.  We have developed
       ... a model State Water Pollution Control Act which
       was recommended by the council of State Governments
       for favorable consideration. ... we are participating
       in the Arkansas-White-Red and the New England-New
       York Inter-Agency Committees.

       "Under the second category, execution of the compre-
       hensive program ... we have  ... worked directly with
       State agencies to bring about solutions to interstate
       pollution problems ... encouraged the formation of
       regional pollution-control councils ... (at least one
       of which has) .. . adopted (for its area) uniform water
       quality objectives and treatment works design standards
       ... stimulated pollution control activities within the
       States by making federal funds available for studies,
       surveys and research.

       "Under the third category, "Technical Services and
       Research," we have ... set up a National Technical
       Task Committee to work directly with industry ...
       and placed under construction the Environmental
       Health Center at Cincinnati which is about 60 per
       cent completed ...."
       This program, which was successfully revealing and defining

the Nation's water pollution problems was nearly scuttled within a

year after the above report, by a temporary but devastating slash

in Federal funds -- Mr. Schwob's health failed, the basin offices

were disbanded, and many of the highly skilled personnel trans-

ferred to other areas of activity.  Could it be that the Public

Health Service was approaching a point where it would have to

take a stand in enforcing pollution abatement measures that would

be costly for members of certain pressure groups?  Perhaps we should

have heeded the words of Plutarch (Lives—Crassus, p. 651) "Economy,

which in things inanimate is but money making, when exercised over

men becomes policy."  Is the public ready for us to take a stand

at this time?  The cost of secondary treatment is even higher today

than it was eight years ago; but then the public is more aware of

the need for more clean water today -- or is it?

       Having made my point regarding the chaos that occurred during

the spring of 1953, I must now qualify it by stating that Congress

did extend the original act just prior to its expiration date in

1953 but after the basin office organization had been dismantled.

Mr. A. F. Welters succeeded Mr. Schwob during the reorganization

period, and the program has surged forward since 1955 under the

forthright leadership of Mr. Gordon McCallum.  A second Federal

Water Pollution Act, Public Law 660, was enacted by the 84th Congress

in June, 1956.  Since this Act is the foundation of our present

Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control, we might well re-

view its provisions to see if it will permit us to take a stand on

secondary treatment.

       The second Act is very similar to the first, with two signi-

ficant changes:  (1) authorization of Federal financial assistance

in the form of grants (instead of loans) to municipalities for the

planning and construction of needed sewage-treatment plants; and

(2) a more workable provision for Federal enforcement where needed

to clean up interstate pollution.


       Our present program encompasses seven general areas pertinent

to pollution:

       1.  Basic Data

           This program includes:  (a) a national network of

           seventy-five stations on interstate streams to mea-

           sure water quality;  (b) inventories of water, sew-

           age, and industrial  waste facilities in the United

           States; (c) compilation of data on contract awards

           for water facilities, sewerage, and sewage treat-

           ment facilities to show what progress is being

           made in meeting the  nation's needs, and; (d)

           economic studies to  find ways of determining what

           pollution is costing the American people and the

           costs of controlling it.

       2.  Program Grants

           The Act authorized $3 million a year in annual

           Federal grants to support state and interstate

           pollution control programs; these agencies have

           used the grants, supplemented by two or three

           times the amount of the grant with local funds,

           for employing technical personnel, for purchas-

           ing special laboratory and field study equip-

           ment, for research,  and for other purposes in

           administering state laws.

3.  Construction Grants

    This program has been very successful in stimu-

    lating the construction of sewage treatment fa-

    cilities, with authorization of $50 million

    annually.  These have been made primarily to

    cities of 125,000 population or less, and local

    funds have been applied in a rate of about 6:1.

4.  Research

    Aimed principally at pollution abatement, our

    research is carried on mainly at the Robert A.

    Taft Sanitary Engineering Center.  Some of the

    projects under way include finding a cheaper

    and more efficient sewage treatment process

    and methods for freeing water supplies from

    viruses, detergents, insecticides, radioactive

    substances, and other substances which can

    make a water supply unsafe.  The Act also

    provides for research grants to public and

    private research agencies, as well as qualified


5.  Interstate Enforcement

    Where pollution of interstate waters endangers the

    health or welfare of persons in a state other than

    the one in which the pollution originates, the

    Public Health Service is empowered to take action

    to abate such pollution.  Such action includes

    first, a conference with the state and interstate

    agencies involved]  second, a public hearing before

    a board appointed by the Secretary; and finally,

    Federal court action.

6.   Training

    The Sanitary Engineering Center gives short,

    intensive laboratory and classroom courses and

    holds seminars and conferences on new subjects

    of interest for the benefit of engineers,  chem-

    ists, and other scientists from Federal and

    state agencies, municipalities, industries,

    and foreign countries.

7.   Technical Assistance

    States which have requested technical assistance

    from the Division have received services such

    as full scale river surveys, evaluation of state

    laboratory operations, evaluation of flew waste

    treatment processes, and special investigations

    into water-borne disease epidemics, and fish

    kills.  Close liason with the major industries


           of 6-he NdfcilM is ttisiiitaifled by the HatiOtial

           Technical Task Committee on Industrial Wastes. jLv^lflW**

           It has two basic purposes: to serve as dti

           advisory capacity to the Public Health Service,

           and second, to serve as a forum whereby the

           industrial representatives may exchange infor-

           mation on their common waste disposal problems

           and make regular reports to their sponsoring


       We have traced the course of the Public Health Service's

water pollution control program from its birth, through its tur-
bulent growing pains  and finally its present mature, multiple-

phase development.  Our main purpose has been to reveal the

complexity of the Nation's water pollution problem and the folly

of any attempt to have taken a hard stand on universal secondary

treatment up to the present time.  Would it be wise Co take such

a stand nowf  Would it ever be?

       Perhaps population density might be a criterion £dr determin-

ing when we should insist on universal effluent standards.  Klein*

compares England's use of effluent standards with the United States1
*Klein, Louis, Aspects of River Pollution, p. 541, (1957).


program:  "In the U.S.A., stream standards rather than effluent

standards are preferred for legal purposes and this is understandable

in a country where, in general, rivers are large and pollutions occur

at wide intervals."  A comparison of the average population density

of the two countries bears him out, since that of England is 81

persons per square mile and the United States is somewhat less,

50.4.  However, upon taking a closer look, we find that eighteen of

our states have a greater population density than England.  New

Jersey and Rhode Island, the most densely populated, have an average

of about 800 persons per square mile.  At least four of the eighteen

states now have some form of effluent standards.  Incidentally,

England has not strictly adhered to effluent standards, for Section

5 of the 1951 Rivers Act left open whether effluent standards, stream

standards, or both should be prescribed.

       Regardless of where we might draw the line for a minimum

degree of treatment, we must expect sharp criticism for being un-

reasonable.  For example, in implementing the Construction Grant

program, the Public Health Service established rules and regulations

Chat require treatment to remove, substantially, 100 per cent of

settleable solids (primary treatment) as a minimum to be elegible

ior a grant-in-aid.  Thomas R. Camp* has cited several instances
*Camp, Thomas R., ASCE Sanitary Engineering Div.  Journal,  Vol. 87,
 SA1, January, 1961.

where the receiving stream had sufficient flow to assimilate the

wastes, and he used these examples to substantiate his following


       "These (minimum requirements) tend to have the force
       of law compelling primary settling whether it is needed
       or appropriate to accomplish the required result in
       the receiving waters, and to divert attention from the
       much more important reason for sewage treatment, which
       is the destruction of pathogenic bacteria and viruses."

He has made a strong plea for chlorination only, where the dilution

ratio is sufficient to handle the organic load in sewage:  " ...

post-chlorination of well settled sewage produces no better bacterial

results in the receiving waters than does chlorination of comminuted

raw sewage."  We do not choose to argue the point, especially since

we agree so heartily with his statement regarding the importance of

destroying pathogenic bacteria and viruses; however, the following

points are here listed as a token rebuttal to his criticism of our

stand in the Construction Grants program:  (1) The Public Health

Service, by virtue of its role in carrying out Public Law 660,

must give due regard to not only waters for public water supplies,

but also the propagation of fish and aquatic life, recreational

purposes, and agricultural, industrial, and other legitimate uses.

(2) His comparison of the efficacy of chlorine on raw sewage and

primary effluent involved the use of a laboratory blendor to simulate

a comminutor in breaking up the bacteria-laden clumps in raw sewage


for more effective contact with the chlorine; a comminutor is not

intended to, nor does it approach, the homogenizing action of a

laboratory blendor.  In actual practice, the center of these clumps

might be expected to pass into the receiving stream without being

contacted by the chlorine. (3) Laboratory beakers should not be

considered as an adequate device for simulating the receiving stream;

after-growth of chlorinated sewage bacteria may be expected to occur

according to the turbulance, nutrient, and other characteristics of

the particular receiving stream. (4) Malfunction or interruption of

the chlorination would result in the raw sewage being discharged

directly to the stream.

       In the light of our experience in administering the Water

Pollution Control Act in this country since 1948, the experience of

England in applying effluent standards, and the sincere objections

of qualified men like Mr. Camp, it appears inadvisable for the Public

Health Service to take a stand and make secondary treatment mandatory,

Instead, we should continue to encourage the states to classify their

streams and thus reveal the degree of waste treatment needed to main-

tain the desired quality; to stimulate more intrastate pollution

control activities by increasing the funds available for Program

Grants; to stimulate a faster rate of construction of pollution-

abatement structures (with a degree of treatment specified on a

case-by-case basis in accordance with the receiving stream's use-

classification)  by increasing the funds available for Construction


Grants; to increase the latitude and intensity of research on sewage

and waste treatment that has the goal of producing an effluent that

not only does not require dilution water but is free of toxic and

pathogenic materials, at a reasonable cost;  and finally, to continue

all other phases of our current program with ever increasing enthu-

siasm and zeal.

       By supporting the state programs for  pollution abatement

and control in their intrastate streams, the Public Health Service

will need only to take a stand on the quality requirements of

waters passing from one state to another with conflicting quality

requirements.  No across-the-board stand should be specified in

advance, for each case must be decided on the quality requirements

of the downstream state users.  Conventional primary, secondary,

and even tertiary or polishing treatment are primarily limited to

removal of oxygen-demanding organic materials.

       Pre and post-chlorination may become  mandatory to prevent

viral epidemics if the rising trend in those diseases is proved to

be water-borne.  In the year ending September 3, 1960, nearly

34,000 cases of infectious hepatitis were reported in the United

States — a 62 per cent increase over the preceding year.  Also,

the current Public Health Service program of nationwide surveillance

of fish kills has revealed that 73 out of 185 cases were caused by


.agricultural poison and 57 of the 185 by industrial wastes.  Surely

something more drastic than conventional secondary treatment is

•Indicated here.  As a preventive health measure, it may be necessary

l:o prohibit the discharge or land-use of any potentially toxic chemi-

cal to a stream until its degree of toxicity has been established.

       In agressively attacking the Nation's water pollution prob-

lems, we are assured of uninterrupted support (as contrasted with

the spring of 1953) by the recent statement of President Kennedy

in his address to Congress on February 23, 1961:  " ... I urge

that this legislation strengthen enforcement procedures to abate

serious pollution situations of national significance."  Also by

the legislature:  Representative Blatnik, Chairman of the Rivers

and Harbors Subcommittee of the House Committee on Public Works,

has introduced H. R. 4036 to the 87th Congress to strengthen the

W.iter Pollution Control Act.  His bill would increase Construction

Grants authorization to stimulate the construction of more1 sewage

treatment plants and would increase the monetary limit for individual

c:Lties from $300,000 to $600,000'; Federal enforcement would be ex-

tended to all navigable waters instead of the present interstate

waters; it would establish a $25 million Enforcement Construction1

Grants Fund to be available for financially hard-pressed1 communities

required to construct treatment facilities as a result of Federal

enforcement action, such funds to be available over and above regular


state allottments of construction grants.   The bill also  retains

the states' primary rights and responsibilities for control of

water pollution and increases Federal grants to state and inter-

state agencies for administration of their programs from  $3 million

s.nnual authorization to $5 million.  The stimulus of these Program

Grants on state pollution control activities cannot be overestimated.

To cite one of the many states which is making great strides in

controlling pollution, California (which received $133,700 of

Program Grant funds in 1960) has its Dickey Water Pollution Control

Act.  By vesting primary responsibility in nine regional  water

pollution control boards, with statewide policy formulation by the

Water Pollution Control Board, it can take pride in an impressive

eight-year record of progress in pollution control even while its

population increased by 33 per cent.

       Bills identical to Mr. Blatnik's were also introduced by

Representatives Frank E. Smith of Mississippi, John D. Dingell of

Michigan, and Senator Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota.

       With this assurance of support, we can optimistically assume

that the Public Health Service will have sufficient skilled personnel

end funds to preclude the need for the simple expedient of taking a

stand on mandatory secondary treatment.  Instead, an intelligent

case-by-case program of action will be taken to prevent or abate

pollution in every problem basin in the Nation.